Town Square

Post a New Topic

Prop. 8 still waiting at the altar

Original post made on Dec 12, 2010

Ann Gaffney Shores knows that only fools try to predict judicial rulings. But the Corte Madera lawyer left this week's federal appeals court hearing on the constitutionality of a voter-approved same-sex marriage ban optimistic that marriage equality moved a legal step closer to becoming a permanent reality in California.

Read the full story here Web Link posted Saturday, December 11, 2010, 8:57 AM

Comments (18)

Posted by Sue, a resident of Danville
on Dec 12, 2010 at 12:19 pm

Marriage is between a MAN and a WOMAN. If they want same sex get- togethers, call it something else, but MARRIAGE is between a MAN and a WOMAN.

This was already brought to the voters and voted on, why are we even wasting time and money to talk about this? The voters voted already, let the verdict be what the "people" voted on.


Posted by Maria, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Dec 12, 2010 at 12:37 pm

That's why civil unions, not marriage, should be the standard. Web Link (<-- 3 years old but still relevant)
Preserve the sanctity of marriage, but don't deny couples benefits and legal rights.


Posted by Jeff West, a resident of Birdland
on Dec 12, 2010 at 7:03 pm

There's nothing in the Constitution that singles out homosexuals as a lesser class of Americans--"We the People" encompasses all of our citizens. And the aversion to homosexuality that some (but not all) churches promote has no legal standing, according to the First Amendment. If a church finds itself at odds with the Constitution on a legal point, the Constitution takes precedence. As to the "sanctity" of marriage, there's no such thing. 50% of American marriages end in divorce, and the Bible states that divorce is a sin punishable by death by stoning. When will we see these holier-than-thou opponents of Proposition 8 stone a divorcing heterosexual couple to death?


Posted by Jeff, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Dec 12, 2010 at 9:35 pm

This is to Sue. That was the most common, weak response you could have put. "marriage is between a man and a woman." thats the best you got? come on, put somethin new on the table, I have been hearing that sentence over and over for the past year or two. Im gay, and darn proud of it! I dont want to marry anyone, but I think that so many people want to vote on stuff that doesnt affect them. If you aren't gay, then dont marry a gay person!


Posted by Red, a resident of another community
on Dec 12, 2010 at 10:27 pm

Sue, that is NOT a valid argument. It didn't hold up with Judge Walker and it won't hold up in the Ninth District. And should it be brought to the Supreme Court, I doubt it will hold up there. There has YET to be provided a LEGITIMATE reason for banning gay couples from marrying. NO ONE has been able to provide ONE GOOD REASON for banning gay couples from marrying.

Just because 'the voters decided' doesn't make it right. The Constitution protects the minority from the tyranny of the majority. The voters were bombarded with misleading and outright false messages from private interest groups who simply didn't like the idea of gay couples.


Posted by Jim, a resident of Canyon Creek
on Dec 12, 2010 at 11:10 pm

I think we should take a vote on Sue's marriage. I cast 1 vote to annul it.


Posted by Wayne, a resident of another community
on Dec 13, 2010 at 4:52 am

Marriage is about two people who love each other coming together in a way that afirms there love and devotion. It is NOT about having children. Having children is a completely separate issue. As we all know you don't need to be married to have children. Considering how many single mothers are out there you how do these people think they have children? Immaculate Conception!!!


Posted by Jerry, a resident of Danville
on Dec 13, 2010 at 5:03 am

Sanctify means the quality of being holy. Since our laws are not based on religion, whether or not a church considers marriage to be sanctified or not doesn't come into play here. If a church doesn't want to sanctify a gay marriage, fine. But that doesn't mean they should be able to deny or define civil marriage.


Posted by wayne, a resident of Deer Oaks/Twelve Oaks
on Dec 13, 2010 at 6:44 am

In the Prop 8 campaign, California voters were made fools, who fell for the "studies" cited by the Christian Churches and the religious right. When those institutions got into Federal District Court, they were forced to admit that no such studies existed and quickly abandoned their lies. Had the 7 million voters known of this at the start, you can bet their votes would have been different!


Posted by Joseph Duchâtelet, a resident of Amador Estates
on Dec 13, 2010 at 8:04 am

am living in Belgium. Gay marriage and adoption of children is legal here.
I tried to forward the following contribution to the Prop 8 defenders. No ACK yet

Web Link
it opposes the claim that homosexuality is 'biologic' hence never avoidable and cannot be learned.
Accepting this as a truth on which State law has to be built is an ideological position affecting the neutrality of the State.
Traditional marriage between a man and a woman is open to every man and every woman.
It would never have existed if sexual procreation was not part of our biological heritage.
Samesex unions and those mariages are biologically different.
Treating different situations unequally is not necessarily unjust discrimination and treating them equallly can be an injustice/

Redefining marriage, extending it to gay and lesbian couples, is not neutral. Those couples are after a symbolic meaning to be given by the State to their union and sexuality. Giving such a symbolic meaning in the name of all citizens, also of those that don't approve of such sexuality or unions is in fact imposing a State religion or philosophy.
It is clear that churches, philosophical organizations may give to gay and lesbian couples a symbolic and liturgical recognition of their love and faith. They may even call it marriage. If a community member does not agree, one can change one's church affiliation.
Such an approach would have avoided that in the Netherlands State officials did lose their job in refusing to wed same-sex persons.


Posted by Chuck Anziulewicz, a resident of another community
on Dec 13, 2010 at 8:49 am

Often I hear it said, "Let Gay couples have their legal benefits, just don't call it MARRIAGE."

OK, then. Let's suppose there's either a Supreme Court decision or a Constitutional amendment saying that Straight (i.e. heterosexual) couples can get "married," and Gay couples can have "civil unions," but otherwise all the legal benefits would be the same at all levels of government.

Would you support that? And if so, what you have you won? All you have for yourself is a word, whereas Gay couples have essentially all the legal benefits that go with that word. And they will say, "We got married in Cancun," or "We got married in Niagara Falls," because there won't be any language police roaming around forbidding them from using the word in conversation.

And if you can't support "civil unions," what Constitutional justification can you make for denying law-abiding, taxpaying Gay couples the exact same legal benefits that Straight couples have always taken for granted?
.


Posted by SteveP, a resident of Parkside
on Dec 13, 2010 at 9:11 am

SteveP is a registered user.

Get used to the term civil union, because the Supreme Court (where this will eventually end up) will never change the meaning of marriage to assuage militant deviants.
If you're really concerned about your 'rights' (versus expanding the meaning of the term 'marriage'), then fight the battle to gain full legal status for your civil union.
Your pushing people to 'accept' or 'tolerate' your lifestyle will not change, even if you call it marriage.


Posted by Janna, a resident of Dublin
on Dec 13, 2010 at 9:36 am

Janna is a registered user.

SteveP,

Ever heard the phrase "live and let live?"


Posted by Les, a resident of another community
on Dec 13, 2010 at 1:00 pm

Sue said,
> let the verdict be what the "people" voted on.
The people just voted November 2nd for the only officials that have standing on Prop. 8. They voted for Gov. Jerry Brown & Kamala Harris, both of whom had clearly and emphatically promised NEVER to appeal.
The people have decided who should represent them. Please don't nullify THIS.

Regardless, your fundamental rights and those of your fellow Americans are secure:
"The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections." --Justice Jackson, West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, Majority Opinion


Posted by Gina Channell-Allen, president of the Pleasanton Weekly
on Dec 13, 2010 at 1:10 pm

Gina Channell-Allen is a registered user.

This thread was getting a bit out of hand with name-calling and foul language, so it is restricted to registered users only now.


Posted by dublinmike, a resident of Dublin
on Dec 14, 2010 at 11:26 pm

dublinmike is a registered user.

All "marriages" should be civil unions by the government, regardless of sexual persuasion. Then, a group or church may determine if a couple may get "married" within their organization.


Posted by thewaever, a resident of Amador Estates
on Dec 16, 2010 at 7:31 am

thewaever is a registered user.

To anyone who thinks that same-sex marriage is something you can vote on, "fundamental rights may not be submitted to a vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections," as Judge Walker pointed out in August's Prop 8 trial's Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law (p.116).

The votes of ignorance & hatred mean nothing. THIS is the purpose of the court system: to protect the persecuted minority from being lynched tyranny of the mob-majority.

It's very clear that Prop 8 was designed specifically to lynch homosexuals. I'm glad to see the court system doing its job.


Posted by thewaever, a resident of Amador Estates
on Dec 16, 2010 at 7:40 am

thewaever is a registered user.

Also, I just want to point out that no state can grant ALL of the legal rights that go along with marriage, because no state can grant the FEDERAL rights & benefits of marriage.

Until same-sex couples receive FEDERAL level rights & benefits of marriage, then civil unions only serve to explicitly create second-class citizens.

Civil unions ARE NOT the answer. They are NOT the equal of marriage.

There is only one thing equal to marriage & that is marriage. Marriage is an inalienable, fundamental right. SCOTUS has set precedence on this matter.

There is only one conclusion: same sex marriages.


If you were a member and logged in you could track comments from this story.

To post your comment, please click here to login

Remember me?
Forgot Password?
or register. This topic is only for those who have signed up to participate by providing their email address and establishing a screen name.

Tough new rules on water are necessary
By Tim Hunt | 9 comments | 1,028 views

Circumstances without Pomp
By Roz Rogoff | 0 comments | 780 views