Politics: June 2008 Archives

California's Supreme Court has long been one of the nation's most highly regarded courts. It is generally recognized as both moderate and nonpartisan. Chief Justice Ronald M. George, who authored the majority opinion, was appointed by a Republican governor, as were two of the three other justices who joined the opinion. These factors -- together with how reasoned and principled the exhaustive, 121-page majority decision is -- will make it highly influential to other courts deciding similar issues.

Connecticut's high court is one of those. That court is expected to rule soon on the same issue decided in California: whether the fundamental right to marry and the constitutional guarantee of equal protection can be satisfied by relegating one group of people to some other status with a different name. The California decision concluded that "the exclusion of same-sex couples from the designation for marriage works a real and appreciable harm upon same-sex couples and their children." It explained how that exclusion marks gay couples as second-class citizens and how the unfamiliarity with terms other than marriage causes them significant practical difficulties, often during emergencies. The decision found that allowing same-sex couples to marry, however, does not deprive opposite-sex couples or their children of any rights. This insightful evaluation of what's at stake should go far in shaping the Connecticut court's thinking. (source)

It's funny. Just after we went to bed last night, Kent and I talked about going to California before November, and obtaining a marriage license. But the question came up, what would it really buy us? I thought it would be a good thing to add to the rest of our legal documents, but the fact of the matter is, although everyone knows what a marriage certificate is (unlike a civil union certificate), it's not clear that Connecticut would honor it as such.

So, I guess we will wait to see what happens. Perhaps what happened in California will effect the Connecticut Supreme Court decision. They are set to make a ruling shortly on whether Connecticut will start issuing marriage licenses to gay couples. I'll keep my fingers cautiously crossed.

One thing I know a lot of couples are thinking of has me a bit worried. Basically, go to California, get married, return to your home state, and sue the state to recognize your new marriage. I too have thought the same thing. However, some groups are stating this is a bad idea...

With only a few days left before gays can marry in California, nine major gay rights groups asked couples Tuesday not to sue the federal government or other states to have their California nuptials recognized, saying that legal action could harm the marriage equality movement.

In an unusual six-page memorandum, written for same-sex couples, groups ranging from the American Civil Liberties Union to Lambda Legal warned that lawsuits would invite "bad" court rulings that could take years to overturn.

The memo cautioned that the U.S. Supreme Court has traditionally refused to embrace major social change until many states have already acted and that the battle for marriage must be orchestrated strategically, state by state, court by court.

"Bad rulings will make it much more difficult for us to win marriage, and will certainly make it take much longer," the memo said. (source)

Point well taken, but that is exactly why Connecticut is being sued and why the Connecticut Supreme Court is now involved.. Some gay couples got together after the civil union bill passed, and sued the state for marriage. In a sense, this whole issue has taken on a life of it's own.

We are going to wait and see where it all goes. The only thing worse than being separate and unequal (civil unions = sitting in the back of the bus) is completely being separated from the hope of equality (amendments against civil unions and marriage = not even able to get on the bus).

This issue doesn't rule our lives. We are just like any other couple in America. Gas prices are more of a concern along with the future make up of the U.S. Supreme Court. I'm sure many who read this blog think that this is a very consuming issue for us. It isn't at all. These days, I only think about it when some article comes out on it. And, I suppose I'll think about it when a hospital prevents me from having visitation rights with my partner because today, we are legal strangers.

Somehow, that just seems "unAmerican." The problem is, unfortunately, is that it is very American to divide one group from another, and make one group better than the other. We do it all the time.

Conservative groups are calling on the Board of Supervisors to stop same-sex marriage licenses from being issued in the county. Kern County Clerk Ann Barnett announced wedding ceremonies would no longer be performed at the county building after the California Supreme Court ruled that same sex couples could be married.

Since the ruling, some residents want the Board of Supervisors to create a county ordinance that would nullify the California Supreme Court's decision.

After Barnett's announcement, weddings would no longer be performed at the county building. (source)

There are so many things wrong with this, I don't know where to begin. I'll start with the obvious. The Supreme Court in a state is the final word at the state level for the constitutionality of a law, according to that state's constitution. County and state officials who refuse to follow a court ruling that they don't like SHOULD BE REMOVED FROM OFFICE, OR RESIGN, because they are unfit to do their job!

Second point, religion has it's place, IN A CHURCH. It has no place in the make up of public laws that effect everyone's quality of life. This is a law that effects the lives of millions of people. If we want to be a country that is governed by religious laws, we have a perfect template to follow by looking at Iran. There, they slowly hang people who are charged with homosexuality. Perhaps a law of that nature would be more palatable to the religious freakoids who want to make life more difficult for gay couples, many of which have children. And any way you slice that, I think they call those groups of people A FAMILY.

Mettler said he's speaking on behalf of concerned residents and the Bakersfield Republican Assembly in calling on county supervisors to create an ordinance that would prohibit the issuing of same-sex marriage licenses until California voters have the opportunity to overturn the Supreme Court's decision in November.

Pathetic. They want to create an ordinance to override a Supreme Court ruling. The ordinance would immediately be unconstitutional. But this is what really got me...

Mettler said, "We are asking our supervisors, who have sworn to uphold the constitution and to uphold the will of the people. Laws are to be made by the people, not by the judges."

WRONG. Laws are made by the legislature in your state, who are the representatives of the people. The laws they make, ALL OF THEM, are held to a higher standard than public opinion. The laws are held to the standard of the state and federal constitutions. The reason that it is set up that way is to have a standard of fairness in the implementation of the laws - so that no single group of people are held to a different standard, UNDER THE LAW. The California Supreme Court ruled that Proposition 22, passed by popular vote that outlawed same-sex marriage in 2000, was found to be unfair and unconstitutional because it targeted a single group of people. That is the purpose of the court. Any public official who will not or can not follow the law should be removed (or resign) from office.

On a personal note, I'm getting pretty sick and tired of these religious groups of nuts who feel that they can shove their sense of morality down the throats of everyone else. They want to protect marriage? Then try to get a law passed outlawing divorce. I know that would be unpopular, and it's not as popular as bashing gay couples who want marriage, but at least it would give you a little more credibility in the eyes of people like me.

I'd love to know how many of these people holding up the "sanctity of marriage" signs have been married 3-4 times already.

CHICAGO - Hillary Rodham Clinton will concede Tuesday night that Barack Obama has the delegates to secure the Democratic nomination, campaign officials said, effectively ending her bid to be the nation's first female president.

The former first lady will stop short of formally suspending or ending her race in her speech in New York City. She will pledge to continue to speak out on issues like health care. But for all intents and purposes, the two senior officials said, the campaign is over. (source)

Well, I guess I'll believe it when I see it. I don't have anything against her really. It's just that she brings a lot of baggage to the White House. And for those who feel that Bill Clinton wouldn't have his nose in everything, I have a sea side home to sell you in Arizona.