CA Court Upholds Prop 8


Via AP. In a stunning victory for common sense, and in a move that actually supports the will of the people of California, that state’s supreme court upheld Proposition 8, the ban on same-sex marriage. The court did rule, however that existing same-sex marriages would be allowed to stand.

More as this develops.



3 Responses to CA Court Upholds Prop 8

  1. Gerry Ashley says:

    I don’t think this is as cut and dry as it may seem, and I’m going to break ranks with my writing partner on this.

    Before I do so, let me acknowledge several things:

    1.) The Supreme Court has spoken and, apparently that’s the end unless the supporters of Gay marriage with to take this to the US Supreme Court.

    2.) Although I am not gay, I do have two friends in California who are gay and managed to get married during the small window of opportunity. Although they just recently got married, they’ve been together for over 20 years… far longer than a large percentage of heterosexual marriages.

    Regarding the ruling in California:

    First, let me state that this is where I believe State’s rights should take precedence even though I may disagree with the decision. A United States “state” is an entity unto itself and should have the right to implement its own laws even if they disagree with the majority of other states or the Federal Government AS LONG AS IT IS NOT IN CONFLICT WITH THE BILL OF RIGHTS OR CONSTITUTION IN GENERAL.

    That’s where I feel this case merits a federal review.

    Before I go any further: As a conservative, I refuse to be boxed in to anyone’s view of what “a position that every conservative should subscribe to.” If that is what being a conservative is, count me OUT. That’s why I am registered as an Independent. I can think for myself, thank you very much. I don’t need Rush Limbaugh or that Barking Moonbat Al Franken to tell me how to think on anything.

    And while I respect those whose opinion is in line with the California Supreme Court, I expect no less consideration or respect for mine, although you are free to disagree with me.

    But we, in this country, seem to be so paranoid and concerned about things that really are none of our business. In this case, regardless of how you view gays, are they not afforded the same promise of the Constitution? Are they not deserving of the pursuit of happiness?

    In this case, it’s not just about the novelty of being able to refer to another person of the same sex as “my spouse.” It goes far deeper than that. It goes to things like “Right of survivorship” in cases where one person dies. It goes to things like the simple right to be allowed into a hospital room when one member of the couple is seriously ill or injured.

    Currently, many hospitals will not allow this simply because the other person says he (or she), “is my partner.” In a way, I can see their viewpoint. How does one know if that claim is true? Well, a document from the state that establishes a person as the spouse of another would work and the person wouldn’t have to waste so much time simply trying to gain access to their loved one.

    There’s a myriad of other reasons gays seek the same rights and benefits of married couples who are heterosexual. And it has nothing to do with religion or what is considered “the norm” of marriage being between a male and female ONLY. It’s simply about being treated with respect and dignity when it comes to matters concerning a spouse. I find most anti-gay people can only relate to the issue by giving examples of the “in-your-face gays.” The truth of the matter is those are the minority of gays. The vast majority live among us, working hard every day just like us… only they keep their sexuality private (as we ALL should.

    As to those who can only view gays as the flamboyant type: If knowing two gay people are legally married somehow threatens or cheapens your marriage (in your eyes), then may I suggest that, perhaps, you have a problem that is either in your relationship or in your ability to acknowledge those who are different than you. Either case is your failing, not the gay person’s.

    Finally, if a state or the US wants to BAN marriage between same-sex couples, they might be wise to FIRST come up with an equivalent legal union between the two that affords them the same level of rights vis-a-vis the aforementioned concerns (hospital visits, legal right of survivorship etc.). Do that first, then you have every right to offer that as an alternative to outright “marriage.” Each side gets what they need. Heterosexuals can claim “it’s not a marriage” all day long. Gays, on the other hand, can celebrate that they now have equality in regards to the legal recognition of the union and grant them the rights that they seek in case of illness and/or death as well as other areas we take for granted.

    But to simply BAN marriage without offering an alternative solution that meets the same needs is, in my opinion, to deny them the right to the pursuit of happiness. And NOBODY, not even the President, should have that right.

    • Stoutcat says:

      Gerry, as I understand it, the only thing same-sex couples cannot do (now) in CA is get married. All the other emoluments of civil union have already been legislated for same-sex partnerships. Can’t find a link right now, but will post when I can dig it up.

      • Gerry Ashley says:

        One thing I am curious about regarding this “stunning victory for common sense…”

        Maybe you (or one of our readers) can address this. But here it is:

        The decision allows those gay couples who married during that window of opportunity to continue to be recognized as “married.” Yet, supposedly, all other gays don’t deserve that right. So which is it? It’s OK for THESE folks to be married, but no-one else?

        OK, then, riddle me THIS, Batman… if the thousands of gay couples that got married and can stay married don’t make the world fall off its axis, cause curvature of the spine or lose the war for the allies, then doesn’t it seem reasonable to assume if other gay couples were allowed to marry that it won’t be the cause of California falling into the Pacific?

        I’m not sure why this bothers me as much as it does, but perhaps one of our readers (or you) can explain to me why a gay couple, devoted to each other, shouldn’t have the same right to be married as many straight couples? How does someone ELSE’S marriage affect you (or me) in a negative way? Isn’t it really none of our business?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s