October 15th, 2008

Kor

Sigh

Some days, it just seems hopeless.

I think it's only the second time I've had to trim a comment because of the 4300 character limit.

Can I just climb in bed, pull the covers up, and hope the stupid will go away?
  • Current Mood
    sad sad
Earth

Defense of Marriage

Thanks to joedecker, who did the major legwork, from the actual In re Marriage decision (pps 119-120):
When a statute’s differential treatment of separate categories of individuals is found to violate equal protection principles, a court must determine whether the constitutional violation should be eliminated or cured by extending to the previously excluded class the treatment or benefit that the statute affords to the included class, or alternatively should be remedied by withholding the benefit equally from both the previously included class and the excluded class. A court generally makes that determination by considering whether extending the benefit equally to both classes, or instead withholding it equally, would be most consistent with the likely intent of the Legislature, had that body recognized that unequal treatment was constitutionally impermissible. (See, e.g., Kopp v. Fair Political Practices Com. (1995) 11 Cal.4th 607, 626-662; Arp v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd., supra, 19 Cal.4th 395, 407-410.)

In the present case, it is readily apparent that extending the designation of marriage to same-sex couples clearly is more consistent with the probable legislative intent than withholding that designation from both opposite-sex couples and same-sex couples in favor of some other, uniform designation. In view of the lengthy history of the use of the term “marriage” to describe the family relationship here at issue, and the importance that both the supporters of the 1977 amendment to the marriage statutes and the electors who voted in favor of Proposition 22 unquestionably attached to the designation of marriage, there can be no doubt that extending the designation of marriage to same-sex couples, rather than denying it to all couples, is the equal protection remedy that is most consistent with our state’s general legislative policy and preference.

Proposition 8 - assuming it stands up in court at all, which is questionable (Constitutional amendments require a 2/3 vote of the state legislature or a constitutional convention) - would, by definition, enforce differential treatment. Given the In re Marriage decision, the eventual result would be clear: The California Supreme Court would be forced to remove the institution of civil marriage in California.

One of course could still get married in a church (as before), and one could call oneself married (as before). As, in fact, quite a number of gay and lesbian couples called themselves before the In re Marriage decision. But the civil contract would be gone, though possibly replaced by some form of "civil union" with similar conditions (if it's good enough for the gays, it's good enough for everyone, right?).

It's unclear what would happen to existing marriages. Given that it's been pointed out that Prop 8 wouldn't affect existing gay marriages, probably nothing. But the ongoing consequences could be quite far-reaching:
  • There's a good chance that the civil process would be completely separate from the civil one, so religious representatives could no longer perform both simultaneously.

  • Other states have to recognize marriages performed elsewhere (though some have attempted to duck that for gay marriages, which is of questionable legality), and other countries recognize marriages performed here, by international treaty (As we're, umm, supposed to recognize gay marriages performed in other countries...). No one has to recognize civil unions. A marriage performed in California would have no bearing elsewhere

  • Similarly, a marriage performed elsewhere would no longer necessarily have any validity in California.

  • Federal law grants certain rights to married couples - not the least of those being the preferential tax treatment. It is likely that none of those rights would extend to Californians.
So. The result is quite clear. Voting either way on Prop 8 does nothing one way or the other about freedom of religion (Where do people come up with this BS?), and will have nothing to do with the spiritual definition of marriage (People are going to have ceremonies, and call themselves married, independent of what other people think).

But a yes vote on Prop. 8 is a vote for the abolishment of civil marriage.
  • Current Mood
    calm calm
Sri Yantra

Domesticity

'Round about 3:00pm yesterday, timenchanter and I climbed into the Escort, and took the winding path up to the Dome. This time we actually did something - the gutter over the carport blew off last winter, and they want to replace it, so we were to get rid of the last attachment bits, and scrape the paint on the fascia.

After some of the scraping took off large pieces of board, we kinda determined that a lot of the fascia was rotten, and proceeded to take it down.

This was a little tricky, since we needed to not disturb the flashing that overlapped it at the top, and also minimize the number of floodlights broken in the process (As it turns out, the minimum number is 1).

It actually took a couple of hours, and a fair amount of ingenuity. Next Tuesday we'll likely be putting up the replacement wood.

And, of course, a nice dinner, and some good conversation. It was good to learn that they're both voting No on Prop. 8 - they're a little leery of the whole gay thing (they are in their 80s), but they also think, and have a background in civil rights.

This is far from the first time something ridiculous like this has come up.

We got back around 10:30pm, and did the usual surf in our own rooms bit.

What I've mostly done, honestly, is spend my time arguing gay marriage issues with people that really don't wanna hear it, and attempt to help vanillachick78 with a router issue - without a huge level of success.

Around noon, Timmie suggested we walk out to lunch, so we walked a mile down to the nearest Togo's for the weekly diabetes fight special (Thanks for pointing that out, candiddani!), then back. It's a beautiful day for a walk.

Right now, I need to start the whole motivation thing - need to find a good apple pie, and get to the bar in time for the debate!
  • Current Mood
    calm calm