California's top court legalizes gay marriage

Friday 16th May, 06:10 AM JST

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

Latest 15 of 87 Total Comments Show All

Betzee at 09:29 PM JST - 17th May

It seems some people here think that the role of the judiciary is to reflect public opinion. If that were the case, the disenfranchisement of women and segregation would probably still be on the books since the majority were comfortable with those restrictions and fearful of where social change might lead.

The role of the judiciary is to interpret the law from the perspective of citizens' rights. Not one person who opposed this decision here came up with a legally compelling reason as to why same-sex couples should be denied the legal benefits of marriage. It doesn't mean a minister is now required to marry a gay couple, or any couple, but city hall shouldn't be able to turn them away. And now it won't; at least in the Golden and Bay States.
super delegate at 09:34 PM JST - 17th May

"The role of the judiciary is to interpret the law from the perspective of citizens' rights. Not one person who opposed this decision here came up with a legally compelling reason as to why same-sex couples should be denied the legal benefits of marriage."

So if the same 4 judges declared - also against the wishes of California citizens - that the age of consent in their state shall henceforth be 14 for girls and 16 for boys you'd have no problem with that?
SuperLib at 10:29 PM JST - 17th May

Judges decide the age of consent?
Betzee at 10:30 PM JST - 17th May

Do you understand how the law works? A gay couple must have filed suit claiming discrimination under existing laws. Just as the a black girl in Kansas claimed "separate was not equal" with respect to schooling. And the judges decided, after reviewing the law, they were right.

These were not among the legal considerations in the current case (pasted in from above):

[T]he underlying issue is that they want their "belief and practices" accepted as norm. If they want to take practices with the rest of America, then they realize that the rest of America finds that their practices are not normal. And instead of being seen as "abnormal" they want to try to make what they are doing the norm...

[F]or the record - my chief objection to gay marriage is basically what I think is the Hayekian one - a great deal of knowledge (not to mention economic wisdom) is transmitted generation to generation by the institution of marriage. I see little benefit and tremendous risk in altering so dramatically one of the fundamental - some would say the most fundamental - institutions and customs in any society...

Nucular needs to explain why childless marriages should be legal, nevermind many gay people have children (such as Dick Cheney's younger daughter who has been in a long-time relationship).

As for the court lowering the age of consent, they could only do so if a 14-year old brought a case claiming discrimination because she had to wait until the age of 18 (or 16 with parental consent). Does that sound like an issue of discrimination to you?
jambon at 11:09 PM JST - 17th May

If I can have two daddys then why not three daddys?

Ever wonder why the kibbutz failed?
Betzee at 12:10 AM JST - 18th May

"California citizens"

Incorrect designation. One is a citizen of a country and resident of a state. This court ruling will pump up tourism, which levies hefty taxes on things such as hotel rooms and rental cars, as gays flock to the Golden State to get married (considering the current state budget shortfall nobody will be complaining on that score). Massachusetts only performs marriages for state residents so their ruling had little national impact.
Maruku at 02:27 PM JST - 18th May

Jambon, you obviously know nothing about Kibbutzm whatsoever. It's a an agricultural/service cooperative, not the Appalachians in the states or Waco (and no one really knows the story about the latter). Betzee, your posts are sound, but as for gay marriage posing a threat to society in terms of what is passed on to children etc., Respect, but I beg to differ. Aside from what the cons would have us believe, gays don't live as straights first, have kids, and only then decide to enter into same-sex unions and then confuse their kids.

Sure it's probably happened, but that's because of the taboo (the religious-political taboo) that prevented them from entering same-sex unions in the first place. Folks usually know pretty early on whether they are straight or not. It's usually not an epiphany that hits them when their kids are formative. My views, Darwinian in this case, is that the majority of same-unions would result in no kids, hence no perpetuation the morals you perceive as being intrinsically negative to society. It's ends with the couple being happy. If they wanted to adopt kids ... then I see where you're coming from.

Society in general is not affected by this law. Gay society is only one that is affected here. It's basically an acknowledgment of a people's right to freedom of association acknowledged as such by the state (and it already is in other ways). It's progressive (see the right bristle at the "P"-word) and the legislators should be commended for forward thinking in the land that we all grew up thinking as the land of the free.

The real issue here, and I'm surprised it hasn't come up, is that same-sex unions don't produce kids. No kids = no taxpayer-of-tomorrow. All governments want the taxpayer-of-tomorrow because someone has to pay the bill. Gay people are probably not concerned about the taxpayer-of-tomorrow and that doesn't sit well with any government, particularly one based on a veneer of Christian values. ergo: no deal.
Betzee at 10:39 PM JST - 18th May

Muruku, You're right; gays who've conceived children the old-fashioned way are of an older generation when coming out of the closet was not an option. So they married someone of the opposite sex, had a family and then things broke down and they found someone of their own persuasion with whom they are very happy. I work with a woman like this, her 40-something female partner is a divorcee and a grandmother. They share at least one "Hi Babe!" phone call a day which makes another person we work with uncomfortable but it's less about the fact they are gay than that he feels it's not proper office etiquette.

As for gays producing children, people who become parents by unnatural means have generally thought it over carefully and understand the responsibilites they are taking on. They also tend to be older and financially secure as well. The marriage law won't have any effect on reproductive rates among gays; they either will want to become parents, like Mary Cheney, or not. Those who do become parents, however, will disproportionately line up for a marriage license, so their kids can enjoy all the benefits of stable family life.

I know a lesbian couple who have two boys (each one gave birth to one son). It's a terrible hassle for them to travel, for example, since they are not recognized as a legal family. Parental permission slips have to be presented to the airline authorizing the non-biological mother to take the other one's son on a plane trip. Same-sex marriage will open the door for them to become adoptive parents and end these types of hassles (which will be good for their kids as well).
Betzee at 03:05 AM JST - 19th May

A no-nonsense response to the public hysteria over "activist judges and abnormal behavior":

The ruling by the California Supreme Court needs to be put into perspective. The ruling allows same-sex couples to marry, just as state laws allow opposite-sex couples to marry now. It does not require anyone to enter into a same-sex marriage. This ruling has absolutely no effect on anyone not interested in marrying someone of the same sex. We can continue our lives just as before. For those wishing to marry someone of the same sex, this ruling is a life-changing moment. I wish them all the same happiness enjoyed by the opposite-sex couples who marry (and divorce) daily.

http://www.mercurynews.com/ci9301145?nclickcheck=1
nonacnon at 03:57 AM JST - 19th May

California copies Canada and Europe. Welcome California. Being gay is whatever. Who cares.
nosunset at 10:35 AM JST - 20th May

best wishes!
lipscombe at 10:42 AM JST - 20th May

marriage should be available to any couple who want it, including the financial benefits. marriage and the bible should have nothing to do with each other in this day and age
keech2 at 02:46 PM JST - 20th May

Here's some good news for Mr. Sulu.

http://georgetakei.com/news.asp
ren_doi at 09:06 AM JST - 21st May

A spouse has legal rights and responsibilities that a friend or lover do not. The same-sex couples want equal access to that status. Nothing wrong with that.
Zen_Builder at 09:09 AM JST - 21st May

Ren_doi & lipscombe.

I agree, only seems the "insecure" people that are against gay/lesbian marriage.