I will not pretend to be neutral about this issue. In these dark times, there is one small ray of light:

Link



All I can say is: It's about time.

To be debated:

Should Governor Schwarzenegger sign this bill?

Is this a sign of the future, or is it a fluke?

I will refrain from offering my personal take on the same-sex marriage issue because it is somewhat complex and nuanced and would require several paragraphs to explain and would be off topic to the more narrow questions at hand.

Having said that, the people of the State of California rejected same-sex marriage at the ballot box five years ago by a significant margin of 61% to 38%.

Link



"The people have spoken" so to speak, but apparently some legislators don't like or don't care about how a strong majority of their their constituents feel about the issue. Right or wrong, these legislators are attempting an end-run around the will of the voters of California and the State Constitutional Ammendment process.



Arnold has spoken often about his admiration of California's initiative process (of which prop 22 was a result), both while campaigning for, and since winning elective office. He has spoken often of "letting the people of California decide" on a multitude of issues before he won and since. If he wants people to believe what he says, he should veto the bill.



Of course it is a sign of the future. As long as there are same-sex couples that want to get (legally) married, and the majority of voters say no, people and politicians on both sides of the issue will use all tools at their disposal to attempt to achieve their desired result.

Should Governor Schwarzenegger sign this bill?

Yes, he should. This bill is the result of the democratic process at work. The Legislature is the appropriate body (not a court) to legalize same sex marriage. They seek to do that and the governor ought not to stand in the way.

Is this a sign of the future, or is it a fluke?

I think some states may follow suit. Others will vehemently oppose gay marriage, as we saw in the recent election when so many constitutional amendments were passed banning it. It is a states' issue and we will have different results depending on the state.

Just an update:

Link

I think the governor has a good argument and support for not signing the bill. He is known to be pro gay rights, but also respects the democratic process. Prop 22 is pretty recent and in direct conflict with the legislation.

Nothing is stopping gay marriage advocates from getting another proposition on the ballot-- let the people decide.

Yes, I believe that he should. Marriage gives a person rights and benefits in society. Our constitution states that rights are for everyone, not just for those who agree with your own religious view of things. Speaking of, I have not heard a compelling secular argument against same-sex marriage that somehow proves that same-sex couples already receive equal treatment to heterosexual couples that are married. If that case could be made, I would change my mind. Until then, I'll keep thinking what I think.




California is the state that is ahead of its time that others follow, at least that's what I've heard repeatedly. I don't believe that it's a fluke. It's just a matter of their legislature not ducking it like others have. I would hope that Schwarzenegger wouldn't be an Orval Faubus or George Wallace, but he's not too ahead of the times it appears. To me, he might as well stand out in front of the doors of UT-Austin and give a speech about "state's rights" or something, because that is totally how he is coming off to me.




The problem with this is that people have decided-by electing state legislators who act on their behalf.

Would your view be any different if the situation were reversed Nebraska? If Prop 22 had set the stage for same sex marriage and the Legislature then passed a law to stop it in its tracks?

Arnold is respecting the will of the people in the state of California. If he is wrong about the views of the people then they can respond with a new proposition.

Should Governor Schwarzenegger sign this bill?

Yes. While a slim majority of Californians may be against gay marriage, thats really more or less irrelevant, because the mass majority of them are straight, and will consequently be unaffected. This is the equivalent of Bulgaria referring to a world wide poll, in order to decide whether or not to increase its own health care benefits. What they do doesn't effect us, so why should our opinion matter?

Is this a sign of the future, or is it a fluke?

There two wave crests here corresponded to form one tidal wave. First, California is a liberal state with a democratic congress, and with a population less anti-gay marriage then most (partially to do with less evangeliquism, partially to do with a high amount of urbanization). Second, it happens to have an emotional gay person in its legislature.

If either of these things weren't true, it wouldn't have happened. Could it happen elsewhere? Maybe in New York.

Any provision, either through petition or legislation that would penalize and create a substandard way of life for a non-criminal segment of our population would be wrong. So by that standard, yes.



The rights of people should not be a matter of simply who is in favor for it and who is not. If that were the case throughout history, slavery and subsequently, segregation, would've dragged on even longer. Schwarzenegger has tried to walk a tight-rope by not offending the gay community, but this action clearly shows that his top concern is saving his political skin. The simple fact of the matter is that marriage does give the people in it certain benefits and privileges. We are not allowing people to pursue happiness due to personal moral inclinations that are beside the main point-that being, equal rights and a constitution that applies to them.

Again, without commenting on whether same-sex marriage is right or wrong, I really must question the following:



"Slim majority"? Californian's voted 61.4% to 38.6% against same-sex marriage. That's a margin of 22.8%. A near 2 to 1 ratio. If that is your idea of a "slim" majority, you may also believe that a 22.8% interest rate would be low.



Citizens votes are only "relevant" on issues that directly affect them? Wow! Talk about opening up a can of worms!

Setting that aside for the moment, all taxpayers and consumers ("straight" and "gay") are "affected". It has been noted by proponents of same-sex marriage that "benefits" (which they currently do not receive) are a part of the desired outcome. Some of these "benefits" will cost money to both the public and private sectors in the form of increased tax outlays (for government benefits) and private sector employer expenses. This will require either tax increases or spending cuts by government, and higher prices to consumers or a reductions in profit by the private sector. There will also be additional costs to taxpayers to pay court costs for the inevitable divorce and child custody cases.

Now you could argue that these costs are relatively small (just as the number of potential same sex- marriage beneficiaries is relatively small). I would wholeheartedly agree with you there. Again, I'm not saying it's right or wrong. But your assertion that non-gays are "unaffected" is clearly false.



I've tried and tried, but I'm still not sure I understand your analogy. Is "Bulgaria" supposed to represent "gay" California voters? Is your "worldwide poll" supposed to represent the democratically and constitutionally enacted law voted upon by the citizenry of the State of California? Do your "health care benefits" represent same-sex marriage? Perhaps you could clarify what you mean?

Edited to ask:

Perhaps your "world wide poll" represents California's non-gay voters? If that is the case, aren't you asking the whole "world" to help pay for Bulgaria's increased health care benefits without even consulting with them?

NEWSFLASH! Bulgaria orders all residents of Earth to fund their health care benefits. Stay tuned for further developments......

I tend to agree with hayleyanne - um, with her first opinion, that is: "This bill is the result of the democratic process at work... and the governor ought not to stand in the way." Then again, I feel that gay marriage is already covered by the Fourteenth Amendment and that it could be up to either the legislature or the courts to secure the freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution to all people. There are some rights that ought not to be removed on the basis of mob rule - and this is one of them.

Governor Schwarzenegger's position for some time has been that it should be up to the courts to decide this issue - which makes this something of a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. If the courts rule in favor of gay marriage, it's because of "activist judges". Now, if elected representatives legislate in favor of gay marriage, it should be turned over to those same judges. I guess we'll be hearing talk of "activist legislators" soon.

This strikes me as being a classic case of hypocrisy in action. Whoever agrees with extending rights to gays is apparently the wrong body. If Proposition 22 had failed, no doubt some would be condemning "activist citizens".

Schwarzenegger should simply recognize that Proposition 22 itself was unconstitutional and allow the legislature to support the Fourteenth Amendment in order to right that wrong - as they tried to do.



While this is starting to stray from the topic a bit, I think Argonaut raises one of the very good reasons that Schwarzenegger should allow marriage rights to be extended to gays. For generations, we - gay men and lesbians - have been subsidizing marriage with our taxes. We have suffered tax increases and spending cuts as well as higher prices and reductions in our profits because of all those straight people marrying and divorcing all the time. This is just?

Argonaut is quite right. If everyone is going to be penalized by legal marriage, then everyone should be allowed to benefit from it. If marriage rights are to be denied to some, then either marriage should be abolished altogether as a discriminatory institution or gay men and lesbians should be granted hefty tax credits for forgoing all those benefits that so cripple our economy.

O.K. O.K. As I thought it might stray form the more narrow topic I've tried to resist, but Wertz has flushed me out. Since others have opined about the rightness or wrongness of same-sex marriage without censure, be it known that as a libertarian (both in philosophy and party affiliation) as well as a freedom loving human being, I believe that homosexual citizens should enjoy the same rights and privileges as heterosexual citizens.

However, I also believe that governments (whether local, state, or federal) should have absolutely nothing to do with "marriage". They should neither reward nor punish citizens based upon who they love (or not), live with (or not), or have sex with (or not) (social engineering). Any and all benefits/obligations to the "uniting" of one individual to another should be restricted to voluntarilly negotiated contracts between said individuals and any other non-governmental third parties who voluntarilly enter into such contracts. Let freedom ring!

Rather than add to the current discrimination against non-married citizens (and what about childless citizens?) by legalizing same-sex marriage, I would argue for a complete separation and divorce of government and marriage regardless of genetalia!

There's only one thing wrong with getting government out of the marriage business, which would otherwise be fine with me.

The chances of it happening are exactly zero.

Any elected official who suggests getting rid of legal marriage is going to be run out as office as quickly as possible. She would be lucky to escape without being physically hurt or killed.

There are four theoretical possibilities:

A. No legal marriage

B. Only opposite-sex marriage

C. Only same-sex marriage

D. Both same-sex and opposite-sex marriage.

Nobody is seriously suggesting C. As I said above, A is completely impossible.

California had a chance to advance to D. Because of one man's veto, we are stuck back at B.

I imagine the same thing could have been said about "gay" marriage in the not so distant past. Should it not have been advocated?

So, based on your interpretation of the 14th Amendment, if the Republicans (and not the Democrats) had gerrymandered districts so that they would control California's House and Senate, OK, we look to the courts and not the legislature, since the people are wrong? Marriages are regulated by all 50 states and DC. Actually, most marriages are sanctioned by municipalities and / or counties. Are you saying that marriage itself should be federalized? Or that democracy is "mob rule" (when you disagree with the mob)?


This is an interesting point Wertz. One thing our Constitution does at the national level is mitigate the passions of the people. It takes years to amend the Constitution, which is why it's only happened 27 times in 219 years. What propositions do is allow for more dynamic change by the will of the people. Then, courts often have to decide whether the people have spoken in a Constitutional fashion. Checks and balances - courts can and do regulate the 'activist citizens' I guess. If the people disagree with the court, they have to amend the Constitution.


When I first got married, my income tax bill increased by almost $2000. I did it both ways in TurboTax, and it was right there in black and white. "Married filing jointly" increased my tax rate for no reason other than my being married. Was that just? Our tax laws are a mess, whether you're gay straight or venutian. Only a simple flat tax would be fair, and (generalizing here) those in favor of gay "marriage" tend to be in the progressive tax camp. An interesting contradiction.

Should Governor Schwarzenegger sign this bill?
I'd say no, only because of prop 22 being so recent and that the popular vote was so obviously in contradiction with what the legislature did. I believe he said that he would veto for this reason.

Is this a sign of the future, or is it a fluke?Despite the apparent momentum, I'm betting a fluke. Just because Californians do everything first, doesn't make them right. Higher taxes, more environmental and zoning restrictions, you name it. It's not a coincidence that the cost of living is so high in CA.

Should Governor Schwarzenegger sign this bill?

No, and for the same reasons listed above. Even if he had signed it, there is a good chance it would fail in the courts because of Prop 22. If California is to overturn prop 22 it should be through another vote of the people.

Is this a sign of the future, or is it a fluke?

Lately the gay agenda has been slapped down pretty hard across the nation. The attempt to codify gay marriage has only brought about the opposite, laws banning gay marriage. At this point, the gay lobby has to feel pretty dejected about their cause. Their only hope now is to focus on changing the hearts and minds of the people if they intend to make serious changes in state laws.

*Edited to add: Their other hope is to have the courts overturn the will of the people.

My own views feel awfully fluid at the moment, but I do believe a solid case can be made that Proposition 22 in no way violates the Fourteenth Amendment (as I crawl out on the yardarm ) ... Theoretically, each citizen — male, female, gay, straight — has a right to marry. That right is constrained within a definition of marriage which many reject as being too narrow, but nonetheless their right and claim to related benefits remains the same as mine or anyone else's.

Therefore ...

Should Governor Schwarzenegger sign this bill?

No, I agree that signing the bill would have, with the stroke of a pen, disenfranchised the millions of voters who recently passed Prop. 22 by a wide margin. As others have pointed out, when the people go to the effort to bring a ballot proposition on a specific issue we ought to allow them to have their say — subject to a fair constitutional review by the courts.

Is this a sign of the future, or is it a fluke?

Unlike others, I tend to believe California's legislative passage was no fluke. The trends are unmistakeable; hearts and minds are softening. The concept of gay civil unions — much less marriage — would have been unthinkable 30 years ago in all 50 states. Now, it's recognized in several states and not out of reach even in those relatively few, such as California, which have passed laws specifically blocking it.

I predict civil unions will become the norm in a dozen or more states within the next decade. And if that happens then what California's legislature did will be seen as a natural progression.

Should Governor Schwarzenegger sign this bill?

This is a hard question if you look at it, politically, which is why this is such an issue. If he signs it, he's lost his solid core Republicans who he needs in '06. If he signs it, does he gain as many if not more Democrats/Independents than Republicans he lost? I don't believe that's a gamble he's gonna make.


Is this a sign of the future, or is it a fluke?

To paraphrase a famous movie villian: "That is the sound of inevitability."

"Sign of the future" makes it sound like it's still decades away. It's not, it's just a matter of time.




Well, momentum seems to be shifting according to a recent L.A. Times article I read (use bugmenot.com to get passed the registering) that detailed...





The "will of the people" seems to have changed in five years, and the state house's vote reflects that.



To override a veto, you need a two-thirds majority. So much for the end-run.

To address a larger point, I'm sure that you'd agree the will of the people was rightfully ignored during the racial integration of our military in the 1940's and the Civil Rights movement of the 1960's. If we stuck to that rule in our past, I need not tell you what the possibilities might be.

Anytime somone mentions the phrases "gay marriage" and "leaving it up to X", they're evading the issue. The truth is, no one wants to admit that denying homosexuals equal rights under the law in regards to marriage, forces us to see that we haven't progressed as far as we'd like to think. We pat ourselves on the back because it took us, as a nation almost a century and a half to allow women to vote and almost two hundred years to finally ensure that blacks' voting and civil rights were protected.

"America: We're Gettin' There!"? Is this to replace "E Plurbus Unum"?

It turns out that we're not so progressive after all. Sometimes, the people need the castor oil they have coming. Granted, the victory will be sweeter if the "will of the people" decide that the time has come to take it's medicine, but the American People have often resembled the kid in the Robitussin commercials who runs and hides from what is good for it.

1.) While I am against same-sex marriage I can't dispute progress. The California legislature has voted, all things accounted for there should be no question that democracy prevailed and the decision was made. He can attempt to veto it on personal grounds, but if the majority in the legislature feels otherwise it will be voted on again and passed under a different governor if Governor Schwarzenegger can hold out until then.

2.) However bleak and dismal it appears to me: it is the future. I do not think that on the whole Americans are quite pleased with all of the hype and attention this issue has been getting and are prepared to do by any means what is necessary to silence or bring about a solution to this issue, which is the only real alternative to outlawing same-sex marriage.

The "will of the people" may or may not have changed. It's impossible for us to know that however because the people of California have not voted on the issue since the last time it came up for a real (as in legaly binding) vote.

As I'm sure you know, while telephone "polls" of one or two thousand "likely voters" may be interesting, they don't count for anything when it comes down to who actually wins elections or (in this case) which Propositions pass, even when those "polls" are relatively accurate. "Polls" also count for nothing when they end up being wrong (and I'm sure you would agree that "polls" have been wrong on occasion?) It is the "will" of millions of people who actually show up and vote that actually counts in a democracy.



And if you want to point out that the voters democratically elected the very Legislators who had the legal authority to pass a same-sex marriage law, remember that they also democratically elected the very Governor who has the legal autority to Veto it.


Keeping in mind the topic of this thread, I can neither agree nor disagree since I am not familiar with any Propositions enacted in the 1940's (or polls for that matter) that called for a prohibition against the racial integration of our military. I would have to know the will of the people at that time before I could know if they were ignored or not.

Edited to correct grammar.

Titus-- "we haven't progressed as far as we'd like to think"-- Who is the "we" in all this? Who thinks it is "progress" to fundamentally redefine marriage? Whether you like it or not, we are not all in agreement as to whether marriage should be redefined. And contrary to what you are implying here, it is not an issue of "discrimination".



The "People" don't want to take their medicicine because they don't know what is good for them eh? And who, exactly, decides what is good for them? Please answer that question because it is critical to the issue. If it is not the majority of us that gets to decide, then who does? And by whose standards? The premise of your argument is that the "people" don't know how to do the right thing. Well, who decides what is right?

Uhh... the elected representatives. That's why we have elections. The underlying reason for any sort of representative political system is that the masses cannot efficiently administer itself; so officials representing the people make those decisions in their stead. There are numerous mechanisms in place (both official and unofficial) to ensure those officials stay within their legitimate mandate.

Joe,

You cannot ignore the fact that our representative democracy also provides for the "people" to vote directly in some instances. When the will of the people is enacted via a direct vote, we cannot ignore it. When the California legislature enacted the bill legalizing gay marriage, they ignored the recently passed proposition 22 in California. Their actions were undemocratic. My opinion would be entirely different if Prop 22 had not been enacted only 5 years earlier. It should be put to a state wide vote.

Additionally, your comment does not take into consideration the political accountability of the legislature. They are there to see to it that the will of the citizens of California are represented. Again, I ask you-- by what standards does one decide what is "best" for the public?

Who is to say they ignored it? For all we know, each one of those 41 democrats polled their constituents and determined that it was in fact the appropriate thing to do, legitimacy-wise. This is exactly the sort of decision that politicians conduct research on within their constituency (the only people they are constitutionally bound to represent.) Without knowing whether or not that happened though, you cannot positively say that they ignored Proposition 22, the will of the people, or anything else. All we know for sure is that they voted yes.

on edit to respond to Hayleyanne's edit...

The standard is in fact quite simple. Representatives must personally balance the will of their constituents with the common interests of the legislature (and by proxy, the State.) Now, how each politician achieves said balance is a simple matter of discretion and personal ideology; there are no written rules governing how an elected representative should go about making those decisions. The fact remains that any perceived breach of these unwritten rules can be corrected by recall, election, or legislative action allows for those decisions to be made on a case by case basis.

Actually-- what we do know for sure is that the vote on its face -- is contrary to a direct vote by Californians on the very same issue in 2000. This discrepancy is exactly why the governor's action in vetoing (sp?) the bill was correct. The veto will force the issue to greater consideration and this is exactly as it should be.

Hey UltimateJoe. You are more right than you may even know. We do indeed have elected representatives down here in the U.S. at the Federal, State, and local level and for the very reason you reminded Haleyann of. This next thing you said may be where you are not aware of the mechanisms:



In California (and other States), we have the "mechanism" of the "Initiative Process", where the voters in a State can pass laws that the "officials" can not or will not pass themselves. We call these "Propositions" and every two years they appear on the very same ballots that candidates for public office do. Just like laws passed by elected officials, they are subject to judicial review for "constitutionality".

Edited to add:

We also have a democratically elected Governor. He is also a "representative" of the people. He is exercising another "mechanism" in our system.

I am aware of the Proposition process actually, even if I'm not the biggest fan. I was referring more specifically to legislative oversight, party caucuses, recall, regular elections, rules-in-chamber, and legislative procedure. There are many layers (both codified and uncodified) of rules and pressures which actively pressure a politician to his/her job; representing their constituents.

Joe answered that first question for me so I'll address the ones that followed.

Yes, this nation functions on the idea of majority rule, but it also (in theory) functions on the idea that the God (or otherwise) given rights of the minority will not be trampled under by the majority. That is the standard by which our elected representatives govern.

As far as what is right and who decides it, it is not what is right, but what is just. Regardless of what the people believe to be right according to their social culture, it takes (and rightfully so) take a back seat to the fundamental rights that citizens of this country deserve.

How much longer would it have taken for women to get the vote had the "will of the people" been closely heeded?



True, but the governor was elected based on a plethora of issues, the prominent one being the recovery of Grat Davis' screw ups, and not really on gay marriage.




There were no propositions that gave voice to the will of the people. You don't have to have a doctorate to know that whites and blacks shared a high level of racial tension.

I can however show you a few notes on the subject.

Integration in the Military (PDF)


(Emphasis in bold, mine)




I thinks it was obvious where the "will of the people" was on this issue. So, should Eisenhower and Truman have followed that will?

First off Titus, women got the right to vote only after the "will of the people" made that happen with the nineteenth amendment. How is legalizing same sex marriage any different?

Second, your position seems to be that there are certain issues that the majority simply cannot be trusted to decide based on some sort of notion of "justice". I agree that the will of the majority should take a back seat to the fundamental rights of all citizens. However, the problem is in identifying what a fundamental right is and when it is being violated. That is the crux of the problem in my opinion, when it comes to the issue of whether marriage should be redefined. Some people believe that social "progress" would mean that marriage be redefined as something other than what it has historically meant. Others believe that it is important to preserve marriage as the bedrock of our society and redefining it would not cause us to "progress" but to "regress". In any case, I don't think you can properly call the issue one that implicates a "fundamental right" and therefore take it away from the majority.

Well, it took almost eighty years of a women's sufferage movement to get the Amemendment started. It was socially accepted that women had no right to do so before, and for some time after.

Although it took only just over a year to attain the two-thirds ratifiation requirement, it took nine other states between another twenty to sixty-four years to ratify, Mississippi the last one to do so in 1984.

Yet the Constitution seems to be oddly ignored when it comes to the Full Faith and Credit Clause. If you get married in Hawaii, why aren't you considered married in Texas?



I'll try to address your statement without going to far off topic. Earlier in the thread, you said:



Now, marriage is often looked at from the basis of one's personal beliefs, often in the form of one's faith. Now, because the citizens of this nation are primarily Christian, are we to look to that faith as to what standard we use to solve this issue? Well, that would leave millions of other non-Christians to wonder why that standard is chosen. It simply would not be fair.

It should also be noted that the definition of marriage itself, and the preservation of the institution, has changed many times over the centuries. In ancient times, women were property, and marriage was looked at more like a corporate merger than anything. Not to mention that men often took more than one wife.

In Medieval Europe, marriages were used to codify political alliances.

So what are we protecting? The institution of women being treated as property and the tool of political alliances? Those days have long since passed.

People get married (most of the time) because the couple in question want to spend their lives together. So why does it matter what sex those two are?

Because of one group's standards on what is morally right and wrong. Since many of us do not adhere to that standard, it is the responsibility of the secular government to protect those others, whether the majority agrees or not.

It is hard for me to figure out why it is so hard for people to imagine what it would be like to not have the same rights as others based on the "others" social and personal beliefs.

If you truly believe that the will of the majority should take a backseat to the rights of a citizen under the law, then how can it be acceptable that the argument for denying one the right that someone else has is based on a standard not used in other areas of law?

Because marriage is considered "Public Policy" and not applicable to the Full Faith and Credit clause. From Wikipedia we get the following.....



Basically this means one state can't legislate laws for another state.

That's an interesting thing I didn't know Aq. It makes a lot of sense.

Yet does this not come down to civil rights, and if so, wouldn't that give the federal government the jurisdiction over the states?

I think we've already touched on "public policy" as the "will of the people". Segregation was a long standing public policy, yet the federal government saw that segregation was wrong, regardless of "public policy" or even state laws that permitted or even required it.

The following are excerpts from the courts unanimous opinion in the 1954 decision regarding Brown v. Board of Education, the whole of which can be found here.




Now if homosexuals are being denied benefits that heterosexuals enjoy, would that not be a violation of the 14th Amendment and thereby override "public policy"?

When the people of a state vote on issues or legislation that is inheirently unconstitutional, it is the duty of the federal government to overrule said issues.

Insofar as it helps clear up Gov. Schwarzenegger's moral duties to sign or veto (Question No. 1), I'll stray off topic to address this ...

Logically, we should first define what this “right” is which you reference. I have the right to marry a woman. Every man basically has this right.

I do not, in this state and most others, have the right to marry a man. Nor does any other man.

Technically, there is no denial in the application of the right of marriage. It applies the same to everyone. You may wish to have that right expanded so that a man might marry a man (or, to take it further, three people might marry), but to say that California is “denying one the right that someone else has” seems unsupported, unless you're refering to "the right that someone else has in Massachusetts."


The Constitutional amendment became law after being ratified by two-thirds of the states, so the ratification by other states such as Mississippi was immaterial to whether any woman could actually vote. The point is, if supporters of gay marriage can gain their two-thirds support, it won't matter what Mississippi thinks.

BTW, I've enjoyed reading your posts, Titus. Please don't think I'm picking on you

Technically, "many" Americans is not the same thing as "most" Americans ("many" Americans voted for John Kerry). Whether "most" Americans would have supported equal rights for blacks in 1950 is unknown. The best way to find out whether most Americans support gay marriage is to let them answer with something important — the laws by which they will be forced to live. Then let the courts give those laws a fair review of whether they're constitutional.

.

Titus, our definition of "marriage" is not linked to what any one, particular faith calls marriage. We define it as between a man and a woman. Most western religions do define marriage as between a man and a woman, but not all. Even the old testament has numerous references to polygamy. And, I am sure some christians (mormons) would argue that polygamy is sanctioned in the bible. But the more important point is that secular marriage is not modeled after religious doctrine. There happens to be overlap between the two, but you cannot say that our secular definition is driven by any particular religious faith.





The definition of marriage has not changed much over the centuries Titus. The western world has predominantly defined marriage just as we do now: one man and one woman. The reasons why people marry may have changed. Today, we primarily marry for love, and often to raise a family. But many of the other reasons you cite for marriage still exist today-- people marry to form political alliances of sorts; people marry to better their financial positions; people marry to better their social status; etc. But just as we did centuries ago-- the western world still views marriage as the union of a man and a woman (whatever the underlying reason for the marriage).




Perhaps the "sex" should not matter. But that is for society to determine.



The definition of marriage does not hinge on a "moral" judgment. The fact that the state does not recognize same sex marriage has nothing to do with the state's judgment that such relationships are morally wrong. It hinges on what the state considers as a form of relationship worthy of special status in society.




Sorry-- I don't follow your point here. Please clarify.

Can you show me where this right is detailed? Where in the Bill of Rights or anywhere else does it say that "Citizens of the United States have the right to marry."?

Marriage between two people of different sexes is an accepted social event, with it's basis in faith.

The government recognizes this event because of the laws regarding marriage's secular relationship with the law, i.e. spousal benefits, taxes, patient's rights.

If two people want to be married and have their marriage recognized under the secular law, why should the tenets of a particular faith determine whether or not they can do so?

It is interesting to note that marrying one's first cousin is not socially accepted, yet it is legal in nineteen states and D.C. without restriction. Seven other states have certain caveats, but permit the practice. Those first ninteen states include Texas, Alabama, Gerogia, New York, California, Tennessee and Virginia.

Six of the eight I listed have some ban on gay marriage. Out of all twenty=six staes, only Vermont, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Hawaii have some form of legalized marriage for gays.

So much for the "social bedrock" argument.



And that is what I am saying because of the 14th Amendment. If state laws deny benefits or rights, they are unconstituional. Period.



How true, but what I was getting at was going by the "will of the people", will on occasion, hinder social justice.



We can debate the symantics as it relates to the number of people who didn't like X all night. The fact of the matter is racism played a great part in the civil and social inequites that blacks faced in this country.

And it shouldn't matter whether or not most Americans support it or not, under the law, no law shall me made that denies benefits to the few that the many enjoy. That should be the standard, not social acceptance.

California already has something like this. It's called Domestic Partners where the benefits you listed are recognized by the state. So, I have to wonder why the legislature felt the need to pass this latest legislation.

1. That's not really the question is it? Will he sign it, I don't know. He is a right-winger, so I say no.

2. California is a left-wing state. I suppose it isn't coincidence that this happened.

I can't really tell whether this is a marriage debate or not. I think it is because of your first question, you intend for it to be a marriage debate....disguised .

I don't think he should, first of all. I can't really make many arguments for no homosexual marriage, but I can refute the arguments for it.



He said it. I think I may be taking his argument out of context, because I think that fontbleau is for homosexual marriage, but everyone has exactly the same "rights," or properly, "privileges."

I'm too lazy to argue about this one right now.

Does the phrase "Seperate but Equal" sound familiar?

This is a list of the rights that "domestic partners" enjoy as a result compared to the one's that hetro couples enjoy. That list proves that some benefits are not granted to gay couples that would be to hetero couples, and that said law violates the 14th Amendment.

Are you talking about the first section of that amendment?

14th Amendment

If you are, then I take by my terming marriage a "privilege." I would now classify it as a practice. It is something that the government allows you to do, and doesn't restrict it outside of man marries woman, woman marries man. Aquilla's point is good. If you aren't going to have homosexual marriage, then you try to have something similar, and what he mentioned is so close it probably doesn't affect people very much.

Now, I'm not married, but how often do you think spouses use all of the benefits?
Plus, some of the ways they said they aren't similar are basically negligent (i.e. one of the sections is basically being married).

Back to the 14th Amendment argument. I don't understand how you can interpret the Constitution so narrowly but interpret the meaning of marriage so openly. Marriage isn't a privilege (just disregard the other post), it is more of a practice that provides convenience and a feeling of religious closure between a man and a woman. Governments can restrict practices. Homosexual marriage is one practice governments are choosing to restrict because all governments are made of people that have morals, and their morals may be self-created or they may be religious, and laws and policies are based on those morals. So if in a religion, their moral policy is to have only marriages of a man and a woman, then that is what they will tend to make policies for. So technically, every homosexual marriage undermines the validity of every heterosexual marriage because it is changing the definition of what marriage is.

I remembered the conclusion.

Ah... not a fundamental right because... it's a fundamental right for a man to marry a woman because historically that has been the law? Because that's the only history that matters when it comes to civil marriage. There was no law in California before 1977 stating that a man couldn't marry a man... a woman couldn't marry a woman. Homosexuals couldn't get married in California prior to 1977 solely because of sodomy laws -- which applied to heterosexuals and homosexuals. In 1977, the California government realized that in absence of sodomy laws gays would be able to marry so it was at this point that California legally redefined marriage to exclude homosexuals. Simple discrimination.

That said, I think a veto right now is in order. I don't think the Legislature should bypass the work occurring in the Court. The constitutionality of Prop 22 has been challenged and it has been overturned -- of course, there's an appeal. But the conservative republican justice made a pretty solid case for unconstitutionality. We'll see what happens.

Fact is, things being what they are now... I don't believe a consitutional amendment would pass in California. The views have changed significantly since 2000.

If that's the case, then why aren't gays allowed to be married under the secular law. What is the main basis for the argument against it? Religion! ""We define it as between a man and a woman." Who's we? It sure as heck doesn't include me. Do you mean we "Christians"? If that is the case, then why should I be forced to adhere to your values if I don't believe in them?

Secular marriage is not modeled after any one particular faith, but there are people who are trying to change that.

There is no legal argument that can support denying gays the ability to have a legally recognized marriage. You can claim that this will lead to fornication in the streets and beastiality, but it can't be proven, and it's ridiculous.



I bring that up because one argument to deny gays the ability to marry is that the "sanctity of the institution" must be protected. What's so sacred about marrying for money? No one seems to be clamoring against that. What about marrying for social status? And when that's all said and done, what about the fact that one out of every two marriages in America ends in divorce?

And marriage needs its sanctity protected from gays?



Call me crazy, but you seem rather contradictive here.



The fact that the state does not recognize same sex marriage has nothing to do with the state's judgment that such relationships are morally wrong.

Can you explain that, please?



It's obvious that the basis for denial of legally recognized marriage to gays is based in faith.

Yet when we deny drunk drivers their licenses, the basis is not made off of faith, but of their danger to the community.

If you believe that the majority should take a back seat to citizen's rights, how can you defend this double standard?

Should Governor Schwarzenegger sign this bill?
Yes he should, and I am quite surprised he is not with some of the other things that he supports. As well as, he is for the most part pro-gay rights.

Is this a sign of the future, or is it a fluke?
Hopefully




From Titus link we get some of the most important differences between California's Domestic Partners & Married Couples that are very important to people and can't be made legal thru contract law.

California's New Domestic Partnership Law: An Overview

These are all not allowed to Domestic Partnership[U]
*Ability to file joint tax returns
*Unlimited Exemptions from federal gift and estate taxes on transfers to partner
*Exemption from reassessment under Prop 13 of jointly held property between partners, upon separation or termination of relationship or death
*Exemption from property tax on homes of survivors of veterans who died on active duty
*Partial exemption from property tax provided survivors of certain veterans
*Social Security Rights
*Medicare Rights
*Rights under federal housing and food stamp program
*Treatment as a couple under federal tax law
*Veteran's benefits
*Federal civilian employee & Military benefits
*Coverage under federal employment benefit laws
Some I left out cause they weren't the rights that are most frequently asked for.

While some might not use certain rights all the time, there some are related to later in life that married couples take for granted like the Social Security of a partner. Now if all the rights guaranteed under marriage would be given to same sex couples whether you call it marriage, civil unions or domestic partnership then this battle would be moot. The problem with is when you call it something else there are always qualifiers in there and exclusions that make it separate but not equal and that is the problem.

Cadman-- I think your point is moot. Even if California were to replace domestic partnership with legalized gay marriage, it wouldn't make any difference with respect to these benefits you list. They are federal benefits and, I believe, the federal DOMA prohibits the fed government from recognizing a gay marriage.

So, for Californians , it makes no difference if it is called marriage or domestic partnership. The same state benefits and protections will apply.

Wrong. This list includes the fact that gay couples have no "state constitutional guarantees for protection of separate property", can not recieve or "partial exemption from property tax provided survivors of certain veterans" or full exemption for survivors of vets who die on active duty, among a few other benefits, not to mention "the legal right to marry".

So no, Halleyanne, it's not the same. Not in the slightest. You can put lipstick on a pig, and it'll still be a pig. Calling this the same as "being legally married" is false.

I understand that Titus. But the point I am making is that many benefits -- both federal and those state benefits linked to a federal designation-- cannot be granted (I suspect) because of the federal DOMA statute. So, you are right-- California's domestic partnerships are not equivalent to marriage. But even if California calls it marriage, they won't be able to get over the DOMA hump to provide all the federal type benefits. I suspect that many of the state benefits not provided through the domestic partnership law in California-- are somehow related to DOMA concerns. I may be wrong, but I would bet that is what is happening. In any case, I know this to be the case if the benefit at issue is a direct federal benefit. The "marriages" in Massachusetts will have the same problems when it comes to any federal benefits. Until federal law acknowledges gay marriage-- we will never have complete parity between gay and traditional marriage.

Haha, well, at least we can agree...to a point.

A federal greenlight for gay marriage would be the end all, certainly, to the issue. But I'm sure that many people will clamor on about state's rights, which seems to be the excuse a lot of politicians in D.C. use to evade the question.

Regardless of what DOMA says, the constitution protects people from having right/benefits denied by them on account of many things, including sex. Shouldn't that make DOMA unconstitutional?

To add to what Titus has said in reply to hayleyanne about



While yes no matter what California or Massachusetts does with legalizing same sex marriage wont change what rights are given to couples from the standpoint of the federal government, it shows 2 problems with how some want to frame the debate by either wanting to deny rights or call it something different.

1. It shows that while more states will eventually over time accept same sex marriage and legalize it within their own borders, it will push the federal government to formally recognize it and give the exact same rights as participants in marriage today are granted.

2. This is the problem I saw when this all first started by wanting to call it civil unions or domestic partnership, which allowed our government to deny certains rights while still saying it is exactly the same as marriage. Or how blingice basically says well married people don't use certain benefits in marriage, even though it is something that can't be denied to the married couple, which it is to same sex couples that want to be recognized within our laws with respect to marriage.

Titus, I find your use of the word "sex" here interesting, given that those seeking gay "marriage" no longer acknowlege that there is such a thing as "sex" - "LGBT" includes both cross-dressers and bi-sexuals, who of course can already marry whomever of the opposite sex they choose. Pro-gay marriage folks here always scoff at polygamy as a slippery slope argument, but wouldn't next logical step in the progression from L to G to B to T not be bi-sexuals, who could logically demand that they be allowed to marry one each of both sexes? I mean, it's only fair, right?

Residents in my state don't have the right to marry a pig, 14 year old girl, or all 3 of their girlfriends, and it has nothing to do with the 14th amendment. It's a shame that we need a Federal law to "defend" marriage.

Titus, you can be sure that gay rights groups have the challenge to DOMA in the works currently. Very soon we can expect to see a federal court getting the first case to test whether DOMA is constitutional. One challenge will be that it violates the full faith and credit clause of the U.S. constitution. But this challenge is fairly weak as the Court has always recognized a policy exception.

It will also be challenged on the grounds that denying recognition of gay marriage would be a violation of either the 14th amendment due process clause or the 14th amendment equal protection clause. An analysis under the due process clause would require a showing that there is a fundamental right to marry someone of the same sex. Such a right has never been recognized in this country -- so it shouldn't win on that argument.

The equal protection clause seems to be the one that is strongest. The argument would be that a person is denied a "right" based on his/her "sex". It is a strange argument. Ex. Jane can marry John-- but Joe can't marry John, simply because Joe is a man. A formulaic application (like this) of the equal protection clause is the tack that will be taken -- trust me. However, it is certainly not a guaranteed winner. Many possible responses are likely, for example: historically such a reading of the clause is contrary to our history; contrary to federalist concerns. Moreover, even if the