California

"California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage"

and also --

"Gay Couples Celebrate California Court Ruling"

Game on.

From that first article:

“In view of the substance and significance of the fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship,” Chief Justice Ronald M. George wrote of marriage for the majority, “the California Constitution properly must be interpreted to guarantee this basic civil right to all Californians, whether gay or heterosexual, and to same-sex couples as well as to opposite-sex couples.”

... “The right to marry,” Chief Justice George wrote, “represents the right of an individual to establish a legally recognized family with a person of one’s choice and, as such, is of fundamental significance both to society and to the individual.”

Chief Justice George conceded that “as an historical matter in this state marriage has always been restricted to a union between a man and a woman.” But “tradition alone,” the chief justice continued, does not justify the denial of a fundamental constitutional right. Bans on interracial marriage were, he wrote, sanctioned by the state for many years.

... “No religion will be required to change its religious policies or practices with regard to same-sex couples,” Chief Justice George wrote, “and no religious officiant will be required to solemnize a marriage in contravention of his or her religious beliefs.”

So a right for me must also be a right for thee. I'm not alone in finding that reasoning difficult to argue with. Lots of people will be upset by this ruling -- or at least they will feign outrage as fundraising fodder -- but you won't hear any of them directly engaging that part of the court's opinion. What you'll hear from the most vocal of these opponents will be, instead: A) contra the last paragraph quoted above, fearmongering claims that your church will be forced to perform same-sex ceremonies or even be forced to hire gay clergy; and B) fearmongering claims that this will mean the End of Marriage and thus the End of Civilization and the End of the World. There's a reason they call it homo-phobia. Those fears are in the former case factually incorrect and in the latter case hysterically unreasonable. But appeals to fear aren't supposed to be based on facts or reason.

We'll also hear a great deal, I suppose, about "activist judges." If the people want rights to apply equally to everybody, this argument goes, then they should pass laws that say so, not simply rely on a constitution that says so. For the judicial activism complaint to be credible, those making it need also to make the case that the activist judges have made a bad decision. A proper interpretation of the state's laws can't be condemned as undemocratic judicial fiat. But don't hold your breath waiting for the anti-judicial activism crowd to make that case.

Apart from the squawking clique of demagogues and those who follow them unquestioningly, there will also be a larger group, comprising millions of Americans even in California, who oppose and lament this decision. They do so based on sincere religious convictions and, to a surprising extent, without the visceral fear and hate that characterizes the demagogues' response. Yet this larger group will also be unable to engage or respond to the core logic of the court's decision. They will also be unable to explain why a legal right should apply to the majority but not to the minority. Instead, they will speak of God and what God has ordained; they will speak of sin; they will cite verses from the Bible. They will, in other words, present a theological argument while side-stepping the legal and constitutional questions.

I disagree with the theological argument presented by these faith-based critics of the equal right to marry, but that's actually a secondary point of disagreement. It seems to me that the more important question has to do with why these friends and brothers and sisters of mine think that such theological arguments can or should be persuasive to those who don't share our religious perspective. I don't think they quite really believe that everyone else can or should be compelled to act in accordance with our particular religious beliefs. I think, rather, that their unexplored assumption is that everyone else can be expected to live as though we all believed the same thing.

That's a peculiar expectation for a "peculiar people."

Comments

[Michele my bell-flower]

YAY! I was hoping you'd post about this. Now, back to reading....

[K]

I don't think they quite really believe that everyone else can or should be compelled to act in accordance with our particular religious beliefs.

See, that's where you're wrong.

[Raj]

Hey, Michele! Welcome back!

[Reynard]

A number of years ago I asked myself: "What, if any, direct, dire consequence will gay marriage have on/to *me*, personally (economically, religiously, etc.), if it is made legal?"

Know what? I could not then and cannot now find any reasonably good answer to that question. So I see no problem with the California Supreme Court decision. I wish all the couples who want to marry only the best and hope they do better things with the institution than some straight people have. (Yeah, it's an old article, but it's the only one I could find on the subject that's still relevant.)

[Abelardus]

Oh, Fred! You give us these wonderful posts, but it feels like there should be a wonderful punchline at the end ... and it never comes -- it never comes!!

That being said, good for California, and for the erudite Chief Justice George. And thank you for bringing this news to my little corner of Illinois.

[Sharaloth]

Congrats for California. Does this mean the US is starting to catch up (to Canada, at least)? Who knows. ;)

there will always be opponents to anything new. There will always be opponents to anything old. Often both will find justification and comfort in various religious teachings. They tend not to suit their ideologies to the teachings, of course, but rather twist the teachings to their ideologies.

The christian bible, unfortunately, does have some pretty strong and very clear recommendations about homosexuality in the Old Testament. I do not recall if anything is said about it in the New Testament, but I'm fairly certain that Jesus said the OT laws still stood, or at least that following them was a good idea. This lends itself to blind hatred better than, say, Flying Spaghetti Monsterism.

The Fearmongers, as Fred says, use this to rally people to them. I like to think that they do this just for the feeling of power it gives them, and are generally terrible people. It fits better with what they do than any misguided or outright crazy altruism. The others, the ones who actually believe it and aren't out to scare others into following them and paying for their salvation with four easy payments of $29.99, I think they're just squicked out by gay sex. Seriously. They're just squeamish about the thought of one guy kissing another (and, less often, one girl kissing another), and are looking for any kind of justification for that sqeamishness when, rationally, they know they've got no reason to complain.

As to why they think "such theological arguments can or should be persuasive to those who don't share [their] religious perspective", well, every religion assumes that they're the right one (otherwise why are they even there?). If your religion is right, and it HAS to be or there's no reason to be in your religion, and if that religion lays out some very specific ruling on a subject, such as homosexuality, then that ruling HAS to be correct (else see above, re: why is it there?). If so, then you know you're right (because, really, there's no way to prove most modern religions wrong), and you don't have to listen to the people who say otherwise, since they are by definition, wrong. So these people can gleefully throw anything out the window, including evidence, common sense, rational thought and anything else that might impede them. They do this because whatever might impede them is wrong, and if it's wrong, why is it even there?

Of course this breaks down if you actually start to THINK about it... Which is why, of course, such contemplation is frowned upon.

Or at least, that's my thoughts on the matter.

[Froborr]

I disagree with the theological argument presented by these faith-based critics of the equal right to marry, but that's actually a secondary point of disagreement. It seems to me that the more important question has to do with why these friends and brothers and sisters of mine think that such theological arguments can or should be persuasive to those who don't share our religious perspective.

I am reminded of my friend Chris. Chris is a Muslim, and believes that the Quran forbids male homosexuality. He believes that it is morally wrong and God condemns those who engage in it.

He also believes gay marriage should be legal in the U.S., because the U.S. is predicated on an assumption of equality before the law.

I have a lot of respect for Chris. I disagree with him about a lot of things, but I respect him.

every religion assumes that they're the right one (otherwise why are they even there?). If your religion is right, and it HAS to be or there's no reason to be in your religion, and if that religion lays out some very specific ruling on a subject, such as homosexuality, then that ruling HAS to be correct (else see above, re: why is it there?). If so, then you know you're right (because, really, there's no way to prove most modern religions wrong), and you don't have to listen to the people who say otherwise, since they are by definition, wrong.

Judaism teaches that ONLY Jews are bound by Jewish law, and non-Jews are neither required nor encouraged to become Jews. So much for "every religion."

[K]

I do not recall if anything is said about it in the New Testament

Not in the Gospels, but most of the NT references I hear coming from Christian homophobes come from Paul's writings.

http://www.smilepolitely.com/opinion/2008/03/what-does-the-bible-really-say.php

[Michele my bell-flower]

Thanks, Raj! :-)

Say, where's Jesu these days? I have been gone for a while; did I miss something?

[Sarashay]

There's actually a site that details a Biblical interpretation in FAVOR of gays and lesbians . . .

http://www.wouldjesusdiscriminate.com/

It sounds more like the God I know, I must say . . .

[Nenya]

According to Acts 15, it was the judgement of the early church leaders that people converting to Christianity should not be required to follow the Jewish laws, except for abstaining from "food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality." So there is a case to be made that they would considered the Old Testament laws about homosexuality to continue to apply to Christians.

However, the interesting thing about that passage is that it is a very good example of people sitting down, considering the situation they find themselves in, and then deciding whether or not the old rules apply to them. In fact their meeting as recorded in that chapter sounds a lot like debates in the church today about gay rights or women in leadership or reproductive choice or what have you. Notably, in the end, they didn't say, "God said it a couple thousand years ago, that settles it, and if we let people be Christian without becoming Jews first it will mean the end of civilization!"

So the one scripture verse that seems to be the exception to "you are not under the law any more" (as Paul would say) is actually an example of the principle of inclusiveness and how to go about adapting your religious policies to the people you're serving.

[/end amateur exegesis]

[Nenya]

Also: GO CALIFORNIA! Woohoo! I continue to hold out hope that this trend will continue and more and more states will recognize the need for marriage equality, and eventually the United States will follow at a federal level. The more jurisdictions that are for equality, the better. And congrats to all the soon-to-be newlyweds!

[Nenya]

Michele, I think Jesu is gone on holiday.

[Nenya]

Sarashay sez: http://www.wouldjesusdiscriminate.com/

On Phillip and the Ethiopian eunuch: To introduce one’s self as a eunuch in ancient times was roughly akin to introducing one’s self today as a hairdresser from San Francisco.

Hee. And lots of very interesting historical research presented, too. Thank you! (Now I'm off to read the part about Ruth and Naomi.)

[hapax]

There are many intelligent ways to understand the Biblical prohibitions as not, in fact, condemn homosexuality.

Basically, they fall into two categories:

1) the behavior described is not properly understood as homosexuality but as ritual temple prostitution, i.e., idolatry

2) the condemnation is of men "lying with men as if they were women"; afaik homosexual men "lie with men" as men. I guess straight men aren't allowed to have vaginal sex with other men though.

Meanwhile, in Florida, one school principal apparently believes the story of Noah is all about Teh Gay.

[practicallyevil]

every religion assumes that they're the right one (otherwise why are they even there?). If your religion is right, and it HAS to be or there's no reason to be in your religion, and if that religion lays out some very specific ruling on a subject, such as homosexuality, then that ruling HAS to be correct (else see above, re: why is it there?). If so, then you know you're right (because, really, there's no way to prove most modern religions wrong), and you don't have to listen to the people who say otherwise, since they are by definition, wrong.

"Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's..."

The religions of the New Testament also have provisions in them that theology should not interfere with government, many have chosen to ignore them though, but they are there.

[MercuryBlue]

What's the significance of 'hairdresser from San Francisco'? Or does that translate into 'gay'?

[Amaryllis]

hapax: Meanwhile, in Florida, one school principal apparently believes the story of Noah is all about Teh Gay.

Meanwhile, at least one secular icon is "supporting homosexual activists' agenda"

Somehow, I missed this earthshaking piece of news at the time. And McDonald's hasn't gone out of business yet, nor have any golden arches been struck by lightning.

[lonespark]

If your religion is right, and it HAS to be or there's no reason to be in your religion,

Really? You really cannot conceive of any other religion to be involved in a religious community or a spiritual practice, besides, "I'm right and those other people are wrong?" Really?

[lonespark]

Er, that should be reason, obviously, not religion, in the first part there.

[MercuryBlue]

lonespark: a religious community, no. This particular religious community, as opposed to that one or that other one or that one yonder...

[Pseudonym]

Most Christians seem to agree that, I dunno, Hinduism is incompatible with Christianity (Hindus would disagree, of course!), yet seem strangely okay with the government affording Hindus full rights as citizens and recognising Hindu marriages.

What's so special about homosexuality? Is it because it's icky?

[hapax]

What's so special about homosexuality? Is it because it's icky?

Apparently the opposite. Homosexuality is so gosh-darn irresistible that the RTCs are panicked that the minute we stop making it illegal everybody's gonna run out and embrace their inner "hairdresser from San Francisco."

For some reason they don't seem so worried about the girl-love. Because, you know, lesbians are hot.

[Doctor Science]

Pseudonym:

It's because same-sex marriages really do threaten traditional marriages in a way Hindu marriages do not.

Traditional marriage involves one dominant person with full legal rights and a submissive person with lesser rights. Same-sex marriage is clearly between two people with the *same* legal rights, and there is no cue to say which partner is dominant or submissive. Same-sex marriage is *equal* marriage, and thus really does threaten traditional unequal marriage by being a counter-example.

Things that are equal to the same thing are equal to each other. If a man can get married to another man in the same way that a man can get married to a woman, then *a woman is equal to a man*. That's why marriage equality is a feminist issue: it is the acid test of the proposition than a woman is legally equal to a man.

Just by hanging around being all equal and stuff, same-sex marriages threaten traditional, unequal marriages. My own civil, heterosexual marriage is egalitarian, but it's not *in their face*.

Fred is right, that for many objectors to same-sex marriage their unexplored assumption is that everyone else can be expected to live as though we all believed the same thing. The fact that I do not hold with their hierarchical model of marriage is not obvious, because my partner is a man -- I am living "as if" I agreed with them. But a same-sex marriage puts gender egalitarianism all up in their faces.

The fact that they seem to move with bizarre speed from "a man can marry a man!" to "this means a man can marry a goat" is strong evidence that they do not view the full set of human legal rights as required for marriage. A woman can be a slave, incapable of making her own decisions, a child, unable to vote -- that would be pretty durn traditional.

[Amaryllis]

What's so special about homosexuality? Is it because it's icky?

Apparently the opposite. Homosexuality is so gosh-darn irresistible that the RTCs are panicked that the minute we stop making it illegal everybody's gonna run out and embrace their inner "hairdresser from San Francisco."

As far as I can tell from a few minutes spent browsing the website of something called the "American Family Association," until I gave up in disgust, they have two objections:

1. "Homosexuals don't reproduce, they recruit." Yes, they actually printed that. Because homosexuality is a choice, you know. If it's legal it might be a more attractive choice than the lifestyle I've presented to my kids, and the next thing you know, my son could be moving into that California salon, and how will I explain that at church?

2. Giving same-sex couples the legal and tax benefits of marriage is taking resources away from married couples with children. Because there's only so much to go around. And we know (see above) gays don't have children. And if they do, that's just plain wrong and shouldn't be encouraged by any kind of social support.

Oy.

[aunursa]

A proposed initiative, awaiting a verification of signatures, would amend the California constitution to limit marriage to "a man and a woman." Assuming that it qualifies, the voters will decide to affirm or reject the decision in November.

Interestingly, the initiative does not indicate whether it would apply retroactively. If it were to pass, the legal status of presumably thousands of same-sex marriages performed in California between June 15 and November 4 would be in legal limbo.

[Craig]

If I thought there was a chance in hell of this sticking (let alone spreading (recruiting?)), I'd be happy. I don't.

[Matthew Austern]

I can think of one way in which this ruling might affect my wife and me: some of our friends might invite us to their weddings, and we might have a slightly busier social calendar. I wouldn't precisely call that a threat, though.

[Jeff]

Judaism teaches that ONLY Jews are bound by Jewish law

Which is a good thing or there'd be no "Shabbos Goy" and the whole system would go under (cows don't know from Sabbath, frex).

For the judicial activism complaint to be credible, those making it need also to make the case that the activist judges have made a bad decision. A proper interpretation of the state's laws can't be condemned as undemocratic judicial fiat. But don't hold your breath waiting for the anti-judicial activism crowd to make that case.

Perhaps not, but it doesn't seem that hard. If legal gay marriage is the proper interpretation of California's constitution, why wasn't gay marriage legal as soon as the state ratified it's constitution? Was everyone just incorrectly interpreting the law until now? Including the original writers, presumably, as well as whoever voted them into office?

[Johnny Pez]

A number of years ago I asked myself: "What, if any, direct, dire consequence will gay marriage have on/to *me*, personally (economically, religiously, etc.), if it is made legal?"

So did Rep. Vito Fossella (R-NY). He found that gay marriage was such a towering threat to his own marriage that he had to go out and get himself a second family to compensate.

[Toby]

Courtesy of Fafblog, the clearest possible explanation of how gay marriage might threaten the institution of marriage (not to mention civilization, the universe, and whatnot).

[Noah Brand]

Always remember why Republicans were pushing for a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. It's been established at a SCOTUS level for forty years that marriage is, in fact, a constitutional right in the United States. The GOP doesn't want a Supreme Court test, because they'll either have to legalize gay marriage or... wait for it... overturn precedent and legislate from the bench.

If it weren't unconstitutional, they could just pass laws against it. This is a case where they do, in fact, know that they're wrong. They just can't say that out loud.

[Dymphna]

I'm proud to be a Californian today. And I do think there is a good chance of the ruling remaining in place. First, the signatures on the petition for the proposed re-banning amendment have not yet been validated (I'm guessing there will wind up being enough, but we'll see). Second, the state is about 50/50 divided on the issue according to polls. Third, our legislature has passed pro-gay-marriage bills twice already (Governator vetoed) and, notably, the Gov is not planning to support the proposed re-banning amendment. We've been mounting public opinion campaigns in anticipation of this ruling for at least half a year at this point. The tide is turning in our favor.

I'm also delighted at the fact that 3 of the 4 justices were Republican appointees. Anyone calling these judges "activists" for a liberal cause is just plain ignorant. And their decision went beyond acknowledging that equal treatment under the law is an applicable principle in this case (demolishing the notion that civil unions can ever be considered a sufficient way to accord equal rights), it also based the entire reasoning of the ruling on the notion that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is subject to the same scrutiny and judicial sanction as any other form of discrimination - so this ruling has the potential to affect far more than just the issue of marriage.

In my neck of the woods, there was much celebration today, and this was no less true at the meeting of clergy I attended this afternoon as it was in my ultra-liberal graduate school this morning or at the spontaneous rally at the court house this evening. A whole lot of religious folk were very involved in fighting the good fight for marriage equality and continue to be part of the effort to keep it alive here. Of course, the Christian people the media - especially non-locally - are going to focus on will be the hateful ones, because they make good tv, but remember that for every indignant leader of a faith community you will see on camera this week, there is another who worked hard to help make and keep this change a reality.

[S.]

Homosexuality has as much to do with marriage as a fish does with a bicycle.

If "consent," as so many today believe, is all that is required for a complete sexual ethic, fine, have at. Life, love, God, and the universe are considerably more complicated than that, but unfortunately we moved away from such complications long, long ago.

Victory is yours. Enjoy the "What could it hurt?" phase of history; the "How were we supposed to know?" phase, which is not the same thing as the end of the world (let's be adult here), will come soon enough.

[not_scottbot]

'...the "How were we supposed to know?" phase, which is not the same thing as the end of the world (let's be adult here), will come soon enough.'

Especially after discimination is ended, we will wonder about those who thought that the pairing of two adults to form a union, or be a family, was wrong. Whether it be the fine bible quoting racists of Virginia more than 40 years ago, or the bible quoting homophobes of today (amazing how closely the language opposing 'mixed race' - as if we all aren't the same race - is the same used todays against same sex couples), the rest of us will wonder why we let such repugnant beliefs dominate the clear words of our laws, especially the base principle, the one that required a revolution, followed by civil war, to achieve - equality of all before the law.

Truly, thank you for pointing out just how desperately some people will cling to their beliefs, even as their children judge them harshly for their clear failings to understand the foundation of a functioning civil society. It just isn't as easy to find a 30 year old American racist as it was in 1967, and the same is likely to be true about homophobes in 2027.

Not the end of the world, but maybe the end of something else.

[S.]

Analogies to racism are fun but flawed, more rhetorical than real.

Some Christians have been utterly unChristlike in their treatment of homosexuals. That that is changing is a good thing.

The tolerant side, however, needs to take a look at its total lack of magnanimity. Overnight (historically speaking), it has totally redefined what sexuality, man, woman, marriage all mean, throwing out thousands of years of Christian (and other) ethical thinking. Don't have patience for those a little slow to catch up, just God damn those who don't embrace it wholeheartedly, and viva la Revolucion!

[randlebrot]

If the people want rights to apply equally to everybody, this argument goes, then they should pass laws that say so, not simply rely on a constitution that says so.

If this ruling would surprise the people who wrote the bit about rights applying equally to everyone, then it's judicial activism: "yea, even the people who wrote it weren't enlightened enough to understand what they wrote; that had to wait until wise people like us came along". Granted, liberals don't care what any document actually says, just what they can convince the proles it says. It's easier to get their way then the law just happens to always say exactly what they want it to say, regardless of what the original writers or voters thought.

And if CA voters react by amending their constitution, no liberal will take ownership of that being a predictable result of their actions (or they'll start looking for a way to 'rule' the amendment out of the CA constitution).

[Jos]

If "consent," as so many today believe, is all that is required for a complete sexual ethic, fine, have at. Life, love, God, and the universe are considerably more complicated than that

I will agree that life and love are more complicated than sex, even though sex itself can get pretty messy sometimes (and I'm not talking about the bodily or the kinky stuff). However, I fail to see what this has to do with same-sex marriage. Are you perhaps suggesting that homosexuals have no life? Or perhaps that they do not love (disregarding the fact that, until very recently, 'love' didn't really matter much when it came marriage)?

The universe certainly appears complicated, but so far seems to run on a number of physical laws (not all of which we currently understand, I'll admit). So, really, I have no idea what the universe has to do with marriage legislation. Perhaps you would care to elaborate.

As for God... Well, I'll be polite and just say that God's supposed opinion on the matter only really matters in Christian theocracies. Complicating this matter a bit further is the simple fact that Christians disagree with each other just what God's opinion on the matter actually is.

So please explain to me how Life, Love and The Universe somehow invalidate the mere concept of same-sex marriage. I intentionally left out God because, quite frankly, I don't think the inevitable Bible quotations contitute valid legal arguments in non-theocracies.

[Praline]

Hooray for civil rights! Now if Britain can just follow the lead and get rid of that silly 'civil partnership' half-measure...

It seems to me that the more important question has to do with why these friends and brothers and sisters of mine think that such theological arguments can or should be persuasive to those who don't share our religious perspective. I don't think they quite really believe that everyone else can or should be compelled to act in accordance with our particular religious beliefs.

An outsider's speculation: there's a tremendous desire to regard marriage as, not just ordained by God, but as sanctioned by tradition. The blogger Greta Christina (http://gretachristina.typepad.com/greta_christinas_weblog/2007/10/how-gay-marriag.html) puts it articulately:

If for no other reason, the standard default answers to these questions [of what marriage means] will quit being standard and default. If these changes happen, people will still be free to define family, maleness, femaleness, etc., in the old traditional ways. But they'll be forced to think about it, to see the traditional way as just one choice among many, to live that way because it works for them... instead of unthinkingly falling into it as the one right choice that works for everybody. What's more, they'll be forced to see all these different questions and choices as, well, different questions and choices, instead of a package deal.

To people of an anxious and conservative nature, it's very soothing to feel that your marriage is the same kind of marriage that's kept civilisation from flying apart since time immemorial: it means you're in the One Proven Safe Place. Of course, as Greta points out, marriage has meant a lot of things in the past, so it's a false comfort to believe that modern male-female marriage is safely ensconced in tradition; if you want that, really you ought to have marriages arranged between the groom and the bride's father where the wife's property becomes the husband's. But I think that forcing the law to recognise gay couples' right to marry - a long-overdue move - is forcing people to admit that they marry out of their own choice, for their own personal reasons, rather than because some pre-ordained and God-and-history-sanctioned pattern gave them no other choice.

Gay couples being kept outside the marriage circle doesn't just constrict gay people, it constricts straight people as well, because it defines marriage as gender-dependent. Straight people marry because they're supposed to, gay people don't marry because they're not supposed to, and your sexual orientation lays down a predictable path through life for you. But if anybody can get married, that means all paths are open and you're walking the one you've decided upon, not the only one available to you. Predestination is removed, and God's Plan becomes something you choose to act upon; you have to accept the concept of free will.

In fact, it forces people to accept that they're free, and responsible for their own choices. That's a scary thought.

Personally, as a heterosexual, I feel a lot freer if gay people can marry too. If I can choose to marry a woman, it recognises the free choice I make in marrying a man. I don't like my freedom to marry being dependent on my sexual preferences rather than my fundamental rights as an adult, a citizen and a human being; such fragile rights oppress me as well as others. I don't like rights available to me being used as a stick to beat innocent people; I don't like feeling that if I decide to marry, I'll be held up as an example to people in no way inferior to me; I don't like a personal commitment to be twisted into an unavoidable act of pulling rank on my equals. Keeping marriage illegal for gay people is using an institution as a means of enforcing second-class citizenship, and I don't at all like feeling that marrying the man I love would be, through no wish of my own, participating in a system that oppresses my dear fellow-citizens.

So let's hear it for gay marriage! And many congratulations to all the people who'll be taking advantage of this ruling to affirm their love and make a legal commitment: I wish you all long and happy marriages.

[S.]

My whole point, and I'm not going to debate this out at length, is that the whole history of Christian sexual ethics is considerably more complicated, developed, and even refined, than what this has devolved into: "You want to do that? As long as it doesn't hurt anyone else, fine!" Part of the problem is that it is almost impossible for people who see consent (and, to an extent, equality) as the unmovable and sole foundation of sexual ethics and those who see a transcendent basis to the same to even talk to each other. If you don't believe that any consensual act can be sinful, it's going to be difficult for us to talk. If you don't believe that something that is not chosen also cannot be sinful, it's going to be difficult to talk.

The real issue isn't even homosexuality; it's the sexual revolution itself and how it has so radically reshaped the issues under question. Homosexuals are real human beings, just like everyone else. They're also sinners, just like anyone else. I don't hate them, nor am I afraid of them. I'm also not a fundamentalist; I don't believe the Bible is inerrant. I do believe, however, that homosexuality and marriage have as much to do with one another as a fish and a bicycle.

The American Bible belt is not the definition of Christianity. Over the centuries, the church has had many different views and approaches to race, for instance. Some have been noble, some far from it. Up until very very recently, it has only had one united view of marriage and sex, and one united view that homosexuality is sinful. Go ahead though, throw it all out as narrow-mindedness. What do those old people know anyway.

[konrad_arflane]

"Victory is yours. Enjoy the "What could it hurt?" phase of history; the "How were we supposed to know?" phase, which is not the same thing as the end of the world (let's be adult here), will come soon enough."

Well, how were we supposed to know? More to the point, what is it that we were supposed to know, but didn't? What are the adverse effects on society of allowing same-sex marriage? If your answer could take into account actual observed adverse effects in those societies that have previously allowed it, that would be ideal.

[nieciedo]

I am less than thrilled by this decision.

I'm not thrilled.

No, this is only partially related to my distaste of marriage in general, which is nothing more than an archaic institution that serves no purpose but to perpetuate patriarchal bourgeois morality, male right, and capitalist property relations while at the same time creating jobs for social parasites like lawyers and pencil-pushing bureaucrats.

This is also not based on my conviction that of all the issues that face our country, gay marriage is hardly the most significant.

No, this is based on my disgust of how vile the Presidential election has been so far and my dread of how much more vicious it will become. It is inconceivable that this decision will not become a major campaign issue, and one can expect the acrimony over the next six months to increase a thousand fold.

I pray to God that Obama does not come out (as it were) in support of this decision. The best thing for him to do would be to dodge it completely on the grounds of states' rights. However, he would then legitimately be questioned how he would respond to a revived Federal Marriage Amendment. There is the fear that this will give the social conservatives enough ammunition to swing the election in favor of McCain and GOP candidates for Congress. The disaster of a McCain victory cannot be overstated.

I just can't understand the desire to get married -- it's like joining the army only more dangerous. To hell with the conservative claptrap about gays wanting special rights: by being protected from being sent to God-forsaken Third World countries to get shot at and blown up and from condemning ourselves to a lifetime of legally binding soul-killing misery, some might say we've been enjoying special rights all along! I don't begrudge two men the right to form a lasting partnership with each other, no matter how much I disagree with the premise -- I just don't see why approval from the state is needed. I also don't think the state has any right whatsoever to interfere in any way with the private domestic and sexual relations of consenting adults.

But none of that really matters so much as the fact that we're in the middle of a Presidential election. At stake is the destiny of our country for the next four years and the composition of the Supreme Court for decades. Why could this decision not have been rendered in December? Mark my words: this will only add fuel to a fire that is already threatening to burn out of control.

Reading several gay blogs on this topic I see universal celebration: "Hooray! Huzzah! Whoop-de-doo!"

Do none of you see the black thunderclouds of doom looming above us? It's going to be a long, brutal summer.

[aunursa]

Praline: Gay couples being kept outside the marriage circle doesn't just constrict gay people, it constricts straight people as well, because it defines marriage as gender-dependent. Straight people marry because they're supposed to, gay people don't marry because they're not supposed to

Captain Obvious: one purpose of traditional marital laws is to encourage long-term heterosexual unions.

If I can choose to marry a woman, it recognises the free choice I make in marrying a man. I don't like my freedom to marry being dependent on my sexual preferences rather than my fundamental rights as an adult, a citizen and a human being

Apparently you're saying that you consider freedom to include the ability to marry another person of the same gender whether or not you as a heterosexual would actually want to make that choice. By the same token, then, you would also have to consider freedom to include the ability of a gay person to marry a person of the opposite gender -- whether or not they would actually choose such a union.

Therefore, everyone has the same right to marriage: specifically, the freedom to marry someone of the opposite gender. The same number of eligible partners are available to you whether you're heterosexual or homosexual. The fact that some would not choose to act in such a manner doesn't invalidate the freedom.

[Tonio]

I don't think they quite really believe that everyone else can or should be compelled to act in accordance with our particular religious beliefs. I think, rather, that their unexplored assumption is that everyone else can be expected to live as though we all believed the same thing.

I suspect they don't even think of the issue as involving belief. They seem to view the issue as "God said so and that's the end of it." That attitude wouldn't necessarily endorse earthly compulsion from government or society. But it would endorse compulsion from their god, in the form of judgment in the afterlife. They probably don't even see this as a theological argument. If one took their approach in staging an intervention with a drug-addicted friend, one would simply read the appropriate sections of the penal code.

There is the fear that this will give the social conservatives enough ammunition to swing the election in favor of McCain and GOP candidates for Congress. The disaster of a McCain victory cannot be overstated.

That's my concern as well. I would hope that the California decision would be a sign that the religious right has lost the power it once had, but I'm fearful that the decision would only give the movement new life, where it would launch fresh attacks on the church/state separation.

[Dash]

S. (at 6:01), could you please explain specifically what is the bad thing that is going to happen if gay people have the same rights to marry that straight people have? What is "how were we supposed to know?" going to look like?

[aunursa]

nieciedo: I largely agree with your analysis of the political consequences. The term "pyrrhic victory" comes to mind. I imagine that the McCain campaign gave a collective cheer when they heard the news yesterday. If McCain does win in November, he will owe a big thank you note to the California Supreme Court. (Thank-you's will also be due to Reverend Wright, Howard Dean, and a host of others who have inadvertantly buoyed the Republicans' hopes of retaining control of the White House.)

[MikhailBorg]

Because homosexuality is a choice, you know. If it's legal it might be a more attractive choice than the lifestyle I've presented to my kids, and the next thing you know, my son could be moving into that California salon, and how will I explain that at church?

The fundamentalist lifestyle must be extremely unattractive to the majority of people if you have to keep threatening them with eternal damnation to retain them in the flock. Perhaps that's where original sin comes from; a foundation for fundamentalist blackmail.

[Praline]

Apparently you're saying that you consider freedom to include the ability to marry another person of the same gender whether or not you as a heterosexual would actually want to make that choice. By the same token, then, you would also have to consider freedom to include the ability of a gay person to marry a person of the opposite gender -- whether or not they would actually choose such a union.

Yes. Having a right doesn't mean you have to avail yourself of it, and not availing yourself of it doesn't mean it's not important. Everyone has rights they don't often use, but would want to keep nonetheless, because their friends are using them, and if everyone doesn't have them, chance are nobody will.

Therefore, everyone has the same right to marriage: specifically, the freedom to marry someone of the opposite gender.

No, that doesn't follow at all. You've made a massive leap, which is not at all supported by your previous statement. Would you say that I, as a heterosexual, had the right to marriage if I was only allowed to marry a woman? Because I'd certainly feel oppressed by that.

The point is, people should be free to marry who they choose, and the state should not curtail that freedom of choice in any way, assuming free consent can be obtained from both sides (which rules out children, animals, plants and inanimate objects). At the moment, everyone has the right to an overly-narrow definition of marriage, but that definition suits some people so much better than others that the whole institution is unfair. A heterosexual can choose to marry someone they're attracted to, but without same-sex marriage being legal, a heterosexual cannot choose to enter into marriage without being co-opted into an institution that's being used to enforce second-class citizenship. That's where the lack of freedom comes in for opposite-sex couples.

Hetero-only marriage allows everybody the same rights, if the same rights are marrying an opposite-sex person and excluding gay people from the mainstream of society. Gay people don't want the former, and equal-rights-supporting straight people don't want the latter. Nobody wins, except those who want gay people to be lesser citizens, and those guys need to lose.

[Praline]

I'm fearful that the decision would only give the movement new life ... and other people.

Sheesh. Why do people think the Republicans keep winning? Because they celebrate their victories and don't give any ground. Being scared of the political capital they'll make of your victories only discourages people from fighting for what's right, and that's just handing the neocons a victory ready-wrapped. If they kick up a fuss about this later, deal with it then and fight them.

The far right are never going to stop protesting at every good advance; they don't need the presence of the left to fuel their bile. They fight on whatever they've got, and nothing will stop them short of absolute victory - and even that probably won't stop them, since their whole attitude is so dependent on having an enemy. The Democrats have been milling on the retreat for far too long; it's time to see them go after what they want with the same aggression the Republicans do, rather than hoping that circumspection will disarm Republican aggression. That tactic has been tried for years, and it's failed. Have the Republicans got any more willing to concede points? No. They take liberal concessions, pocket them, concede nothing back and move on to the next demand. These guys play to win, and trying to compromise only gives them an advantage.

Liberals are never going to win as long as they think avoiding a fight instead of winning it is the best tactic. Republicans are going to make a fuss about this; if it wasn't this, it would be something else. Liberals need to get off their defensive hind parts and start saying, 'Yes, this is what we believe and we don't apologise for it: you should believe it too.'

This is good news, guys. You can bet the Republicans would be celebrating if they'd won something that important. Stop grousing and start fighting like you think you can win: nobody votes for a defeatist.