Comments on: Reminder: California is a State in Which Same-Sex Marriages Are Legal http://whatever.scalzi.com/2009/05/26/reminder-california-is-a-state-in-which-same-sex-marriages-are-legal/ DEVISING A SYSTEM FOR REMEMBERING EVERYTHING Fri, 19 Mar 2010 14:32:16 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: Pam Adams http://whatever.scalzi.com/2009/05/26/reminder-california-is-a-state-in-which-same-sex-marriages-are-legal/#comment-148859 Pam Adams Wed, 03 Jun 2009 22:49:53 +0000 http://whatever.scalzi.com/?p=7504#comment-148859 Josh, Let's hope they have a better constitution than California does. Josh,

Let’s hope they have a better constitution than California does.

]]> By: Josh Jasper http://whatever.scalzi.com/2009/05/26/reminder-california-is-a-state-in-which-same-sex-marriages-are-legal/#comment-148843 Josh Jasper Wed, 03 Jun 2009 21:51:05 +0000 http://whatever.scalzi.com/?p=7504#comment-148843 GL - I expect there will be a movement for a referendum soon to ban same sex marriage, just like there was in CA. GL – I expect there will be a movement for a referendum soon to ban same sex marriage, just like there was in CA.

]]> By: Pam Adams http://whatever.scalzi.com/2009/05/26/reminder-california-is-a-state-in-which-same-sex-marriages-are-legal/#comment-148842 Pam Adams Wed, 03 Jun 2009 21:47:41 +0000 http://whatever.scalzi.com/?p=7504#comment-148842 Greg@124, Yippee!! Greg@124,

Yippee!!

]]> By: GregLondon http://whatever.scalzi.com/2009/05/26/reminder-california-is-a-state-in-which-same-sex-marriages-are-legal/#comment-148841 GregLondon Wed, 03 Jun 2009 21:29:19 +0000 http://whatever.scalzi.com/?p=7504#comment-148841 http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090603/ap_on_re_us/us_xgr_gay_marriage_new_hampshire New Hampshire joined the club. they had to put in a clause saying that churches will not be required to officiate a gay marriage if they don't want to. Apparently the FUD that the government would somehow have the legal power to invade the church and tell the church what to do has gotten traction. I suppose it makes sense though. Opponents of gay marriage want to take their religious beliefs and put them into law. Given they can't see a distinction between church and state, it makes sense, in a weird way, that they fear that the state would tell the church what to do. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090603/ap_on_re_us/us_xgr_gay_marriage_new_hampshire

New Hampshire joined the club.

they had to put in a clause saying that churches will not be required to officiate a gay marriage if they don’t want to. Apparently the FUD that the government would somehow have the legal power to invade the church and tell the church what to do has gotten traction.

I suppose it makes sense though. Opponents of gay marriage want to take their religious beliefs and put them into law. Given they can’t see a distinction between church and state, it makes sense, in a weird way, that they fear that the state would tell the church what to do.

]]> By: cyan http://whatever.scalzi.com/2009/05/26/reminder-california-is-a-state-in-which-same-sex-marriages-are-legal/#comment-147431 cyan Fri, 29 May 2009 06:54:59 +0000 http://whatever.scalzi.com/?p=7504#comment-147431 Frankly, I think this decision is a cop-out. Is it not the role of the supreme court, be it state or federal, to interpret and clarify the governing constitution given the case brought to it? This decision clearly did not exhibit that approach. Instead, the CA supreme court pointedly narrowed the scope of their consideration and rendered their decision with such specificity so as not to have to consider the wider ramifications. It was a clever way of momentarily getting out of the hot seat. Frankly, I think this decision is a cop-out. Is it not the role of the supreme court, be it state or federal, to interpret and clarify the governing constitution given the case brought to it? This decision clearly did not exhibit that approach. Instead, the CA supreme court pointedly narrowed the scope of their consideration and rendered their decision with such specificity so as not to have to consider the wider ramifications. It was a clever way of momentarily getting out of the hot seat.

]]> By: mythago http://whatever.scalzi.com/2009/05/26/reminder-california-is-a-state-in-which-same-sex-marriages-are-legal/#comment-147428 mythago Fri, 29 May 2009 05:16:24 +0000 http://whatever.scalzi.com/?p=7504#comment-147428 aphrael, if they were rational, they wouldn't be haters in the first place. So of course they indulge in the fantasy that they can command the tide to hold back. Personally, I think we would do tell to present marriage not merely as a right, but a responsibility. Do the fence-sitters really want to say "No, we don't think gay men should settle down together, we think they should still be going to bars in the Castro until they're well into their nineties?" aphrael, if they were rational, they wouldn’t be haters in the first place. So of course they indulge in the fantasy that they can command the tide to hold back.

Personally, I think we would do tell to present marriage not merely as a right, but a responsibility. Do the fence-sitters really want to say “No, we don’t think gay men should settle down together, we think they should still be going to bars in the Castro until they’re well into their nineties?”

]]> By: aphrael http://whatever.scalzi.com/2009/05/26/reminder-california-is-a-state-in-which-same-sex-marriages-are-legal/#comment-147398 aphrael Fri, 29 May 2009 00:47:50 +0000 http://whatever.scalzi.com/?p=7504#comment-147398 <em>It was also to flex political muscle, to influence state legislators and to keep gay rights advocates from political power and getting legislation passed. They made it very clear that they were attempting to eventually revive the homosexuals shouldn’t be teaching our children debate from the 1970’s as well.</em> They're deluded if they think they stand a chance. Even after Proposition 8, sexual orientation remains a suspect classification under the California constitution, and laws which treat gays and straights differently must be narrowly tailored to meet a compelling state interest. Which means the only way to get such a rule is via an initiative constitutional amendment. The odds of such a thing passing are tiny. It was also to flex political muscle, to influence state legislators and to keep gay rights advocates from political power and getting legislation passed. They made it very clear that they were attempting to eventually revive the homosexuals shouldn’t be teaching our children debate from the 1970’s as well.

They’re deluded if they think they stand a chance. Even after Proposition 8, sexual orientation remains a suspect classification under the California constitution, and laws which treat gays and straights differently must be narrowly tailored to meet a compelling state interest.

Which means the only way to get such a rule is via an initiative constitutional amendment.

The odds of such a thing passing are tiny.

]]> By: aphrael http://whatever.scalzi.com/2009/05/26/reminder-california-is-a-state-in-which-same-sex-marriages-are-legal/#comment-147396 aphrael Fri, 29 May 2009 00:45:46 +0000 http://whatever.scalzi.com/?p=7504#comment-147396 <em>WHY were the 18k marriages not thrown out along with the ability to use the word marriage for everyone else?</em> The basic idea is that when laws regarding marriage requirements change, they aren't retroactive. So, for example, a state which allows people to marry at age 12 decides to change the minimum age for marriage to age 16; the handful of 13-year olds married when this change is made stay married. The <em>reason</em> for this seems to be that marriage carries with it vested property rights which can't be nullified. WHY were the 18k marriages not thrown out along with the ability to use the word marriage for everyone else?

The basic idea is that when laws regarding marriage requirements change, they aren’t retroactive. So, for example, a state which allows people to marry at age 12 decides to change the minimum age for marriage to age 16; the handful of 13-year olds married when this change is made stay married.

The reason for this seems to be that marriage carries with it vested property rights which can’t be nullified.

]]> By: Xopher http://whatever.scalzi.com/2009/05/26/reminder-california-is-a-state-in-which-same-sex-marriages-are-legal/#comment-147339 Xopher Thu, 28 May 2009 16:23:29 +0000 http://whatever.scalzi.com/?p=7504#comment-147339 Mike, the US doesn't <em>have</em> any policy of fair dealing. I had hopes that Obama would be more likely to deal fairly with people, at least our allies, but those hopes are dimming now. Mike, the US doesn’t have any policy of fair dealing. I had hopes that Obama would be more likely to deal fairly with people, at least our allies, but those hopes are dimming now.

]]> By: Josh Jasper http://whatever.scalzi.com/2009/05/26/reminder-california-is-a-state-in-which-same-sex-marriages-are-legal/#comment-147329 Josh Jasper Thu, 28 May 2009 15:56:33 +0000 http://whatever.scalzi.com/?p=7504#comment-147329 Mike, as far as I can tell, they are recognized overseas. You can get married in Vermont, Massachusetts, etc... as a same sex couple, and move to Canada, where your marriage is considered to be valid. But you can't move to Kansas, for example, and have your marriage recognized. Same sex couples coming into states where same sex marriage is recognized is a different issue. If a Canadian same sex coupe moves to Massachusetts, I think the state will recognize the marriage, but the federal government certainly won't. Mike, as far as I can tell, they are recognized overseas. You can get married in Vermont, Massachusetts, etc… as a same sex couple, and move to Canada, where your marriage is considered to be valid. But you can’t move to Kansas, for example, and have your marriage recognized.

Same sex couples coming into states where same sex marriage is recognized is a different issue. If a Canadian same sex coupe moves to Massachusetts, I think the state will recognize the marriage, but the federal government certainly won’t.

]]>