The leading source for credible citizen reporting

Report Your News
Take the tour...

California Supreme Court Refuses to Take Stand and Overturn Prop 8

Sacramento : CA : USA | 5 months ago  
1 2
Views: 69
  • Prop 8 the Musical - Countdown with keith Olbermann
    Posted by: evilopinions
  • Prop 8 Protesters
    Prop 8 Protesters
    Posted by: evilopinions
    Protesters have been working hard since last November.
  • Prop 8 Political Cartoon
    Prop 8 Political Cartoon
    Posted by: evilopinions
    copyrights belong to the artist
  • Apology for Prop 8
    Apology for Prop 8
    Posted by: evilopinions
    Church posted billboard apologizing for the results of Proposition 8
  • Equality Logo
    Equality Logo
    Posted by: evilopinions
    logo popularized in favor of marriage equality.

The California Supreme Court today decided to duck their heads in the sand and basically tell the people of California (and thus all other states where similar ballot initiatives had passed) “Sorry, you guys passed the thing, you guys will have to get rid of it yourselves.” They did decide that the same sex marriages that had been completed before Proposition 8 passed are legally binding and cannot be revoked, yet at the same time as saying “Those who are already married are equal.” they also said “The rest of you aren’t.”

What kind of society do we live in that this kind of logic makes any sense??!

It is illegal to discriminate based on sexual orientation when hiring someone for a job, when treating them for a medical condition, when considering them for insurance, and a hundred other areas where we have deemed “All men and women are equal”. Even in the world of adoption, there is no such discrimination in 49 states (only Florida expressly forbids adoption by same sex couples). Yet still we have only 5 states that recognize same-sex marriages, 12 states that expressly forbid it, and a Federal law that tells all the states “You don’t have to listen to other state’s laws about same-sex marriage, even though you have to recognize their man-woman marriages, even the drive thru Vegas variety.”

Again it must be asked, what kind of society are we in that this kind of logic makes any sense??!

If a person went on television and announced that a black man and a white woman could not marry, just because that is what they personally believe, they would be labeled a racist. If a person went on television and announced that a woman did not have equal rights to marriage as a man, just because that is what they personally believe, they would be labeled a sexist. So why do people continue to be allowed to go on television and claim that two men or two women cannot have the same legal protections and benefits as a man and a woman, just because that is what those people personally believe, and so few in this country are screaming in outrage?

Why is it acceptable for anyone in a position of power to designate a portion of human society as unequal, even if they disagree with their actions? Our justice system isn’t allowed to treat child molesters any differently than white collar criminals, even if most people would agree the child molester’s crimes much more hideous and disgusting. This country has fought one battle after another, against ourselves and others, to uphold the true belief that all are created equal, and yet still we struggle with this inequality.

The one glimmer of hope seems to be that the tide of this battle has been slowly turning in recent years despite things like California’s Prop 8. Three of the five states that now recognize same-sex marriages have had their laws passed or upheld in the last two years alone, while polls also show that a majority of young voters support same-sex marriages. Mere days after Proposition 8 passed in California, polls showed many of its supporters regretting their votes, so perhaps there is still some hope for logic and sanity to prevail, even if the California Supreme Court has decided to pass the buck back onto the voters, delaying until the next election period any true resolution.

News Stories
 >
  • News Source: Canadian Free Press | 5 months ago
    High on the list of Obama’s Marxist agenda is “amnesty” for millions of illegal aliens currently bilking American taxpayers out of their future, via countless “free government services” and a laundry list of left-wing “affirmative action...
  • News Source: Leader Post Online | 5 months ago
    This March 5, 2009 file photo shows Craig Winsor (L) and Victor Choban arguing over Proposition 8 during a rally in front of the California Supreme Court Building in San Francisco, California as arguments were being heard for and against the...
  • News Source: CNN | 5 months ago
    Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts and Iowa -- allow same-sex marriages. A Vermont law making such marriages legal will take effect in September. On May 6, same-sex marriage became legal in Maine as Gov. John Baldacci signed a bill less than an hour...
  • News Source: United Press International | 5 months ago
    Proponents and opponents of California's ban on same-sex marriage were focused on the state Supreme Court Tuesday in anticipation of its ruling on the ban. Justices were to rule Tuesday on the constitutionality of the controversial Proposition 8, a...
Videos
 >
 
Posted By Ross1776 Ross1776 | 5 months ago
Since California is a community property state, and there are domestic partnership laws already there which have been legislated over the years, maybe the gay community should direct their attention to getting the 16th amendment overturned, and then we will all have equality once again......the type of equality in taxation that the founders actually intended. And then maybe Congress would look at those free trade agreements, and start taxing imports in order to get the jobs back and revenue in order to fund the federal government, and put the states back in their rightful place as the most local government with the greater powers.

And with powers of attorney, wills, and adoption papers, other than the "joint" filing status allowed married couples now, I would like to know what "privilege" the gay community believes that they do not have, that traditionally married couples do. They are asking "permission" actually for the state to get involved in the dissolution of their union, if that should happen - and since 50% of traditional couples divorce, how many more judges is California going to need to handle them all, again expanding taxpayer costs in the process?

The "privileges" and immunities clause was passed to address the slavery issue, and recognizing that people are not property - and has nothing to do with "marriage" rights, since gays were in existence when the Constitution was signed, in fact since Roman times, and the founders certainly were not speaking of this type of "equality" with respect to the "unalienable" rights as "endowed by the Creator," at all. And I don't think that it is in dispute that they did acknowledge a Creator also.
Reply By evilopinions evilopinions | 5 months ago
First off, thank you for your opinion, I love hearing others voices. I agrtee that the best course of action would most likely be a federal constitution change, and amendment making any two people eligible to become "partners" and gain the rights/tax breaks/privileges that a man-woman married couple gain today and simply leave it at that.

The argument that marriage equality as is being asked for now would increase the burden on taxpayers is a dubious one considering the Billions in estimated revenue the wedding & engagement business sector alone would see and the taxes associated with those billions, anmd that's without even considering vacation revenue, incrteased coverage of partners under corporate health care leaving less "partners" uninsured, and many other financial benefits that thousands upon thousands of newly married couples/year would bring.

As to what "privileges" they want? Well not being a homosexual myself I cannot personally say, but judging from the hjomosexual couples that I know and speak to, it's pretty simple. They want each and every thing that a married man and woman get from the federal, state and local governments they deal with. If a man-woman union would get $8000 for buying a house, then the same-sex couple should as well. If the man-woman couple would get a break on their car insurance for being married, then the same sex couple should as well. It's not complicated, it's Equality.
Reply By Changez Changez | 5 months ago
Dude, nice article and much appreciated. Not that I'm gay, but I just don't see the difference between a gay couple and a hetero couple.
Reply By evilopinions evilopinions | 5 months ago
Thanks!
Posted By Ross1776 Ross1776 | 5 months ago
And expect challenges eventually on the states that have passed them, because they were passed against the majority opinion of the public, and are being passed mostly for state revenue purposes, and the lobbying efforts also of the legal community licking their lips over the legal fees they may eventually gain from these efforts.

This movement is nothing more than the Lawyer's Employment Act for the State of California Bar Association, actually, more than anything else, and another way the states can charge for the privilege of "licensing" personal relationships. Why not simply have a ceremony, go to the County Recorder, and simply publicly record that "domestic contract," rather than go before a judge and save the license fees?

Or enter into a "partnership" agreement such as prenuptuals are, and record it so that if the "union" breaks up, the contract is recorded for the division of property.

And save the gay community several million for what is no more than removing freedom, not gaining it at all in inviting the government now into their personal relationship.
Posted By Ross1776 Ross1776 | 5 months ago
"Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government."
-James Madison
Posted By rdewey3 rdewey3 | 4 months ago
Great story. I just want to add some color to the picture from the Castro here in San Francisco. Ross1776 is right in questioning what good can really come from inviting the federal government into our personal lives. I mean, do we really want to perpetuate this trend of the government even having a say in who we choose to partner with? You'll find a lot of people around here that want Uncle Sam to just stick to the basics like taxes, roads, postal services, and a small but adequate defensive military. Like Ross1776 said let's handle our personal lives with the laws on the books and take our fight to the constitution!
Reply By evilopinions evilopinions | 4 months ago
You're right in questioning the right of the government to our personla lives, but there are some thingsa that they have to and are going to have their hands in, and the rights of couples when it comes to things like inheritance, property rights, tax breaks, hospital visitation and other such things are always going to need a "yes" or "no" from the highest level to keep people from being discriminated against.

It's the same reason we needed laws specifically stating that black people or women had the same rights as white men. Not because we should have to be told these things by our government, but because we have to ensure people are not DENIED these things.
Reported by evilopinions

Related Allvoices Contributions

Report Your News Got a similar story?
Add it to the network!

Or add related content to this report

Cell phones Cell phones use report code: @3301514

Most Popular Reports

Related Allvoices Reports

Contributions

Help and Accounts


Use of this site is governed by our Terms of Use Agreement and Privacy Policy.

© Allvoices, Inc 2008-2009. All rights reserved.