Let's Spend the Night Together
New Jersey, in a move that could be either a watershed or pointless, recognized same sex unions as having the same rights and privledges as male-female marriage. It was a 4-3 ruling, but even the dissenters were in favor of legal recognition of gay marriage. Of course, all this does is send it all back to the legislature for them to try and write a law that would ban gay marriage, or not extend marriages rights to homosexual couples or whatever. All this has to be done within 180 days, like Massachusetts did. Of course, Nebraska and Georgia upheld constitutional amendments that ban same sex marriage, and California upheld a law banning same sex marriages. Those didn't make the front page of CNN.com or get a breaking news banner. New Jersey's ruling did make the front page, with many gay rights advocates claiming this as a major victory. Since it specifically denied the state's currrent solution of a law the creates same sex unions with fewer rights, this is seen as possible victory. Now, here comes the law.
The reason the California appealate court had to stand by the law on the books is that the law banning gay marriage is Proposition 22 which was a voter initiated referendum. It passed in a landslide 61% of the vote all the way back in 2000. Yes, ladies and gentlemen, the voters of California lobbied to have this put on the ballot six years ago and voted for it and now 64% favor some kind of legal status for gay unions (more specifics about verbage coming up). This is why legislation should be left to the professionals. They debate, consider and generally go slower rather than just collect a few thousand signatures and run ads on television. They who represent us fight it out for us, give it more hours a day than any of us could individually and hammer it out. So, California's Supreme Court will hear this out at some point and a ruling will be made. Then possibly moved upward to the Supreme Court.
In the case of Georgia and Nebraska, same sex marriages were banned by constitutional amendment, which means even the courts have to follow in that given jurisdiction. That's why income tax isn't unconstitutional, it's an amendment the majority of the people voted and in the US, the will of the people, in theory, trumps the will of the court. Of course, see the above paragraph for why the will of the people is little better than a mob in Shakespeare. So, amendments guide the courts i nterms of constitutionality and courts can only rule in those bounds, as they see them. So, unfortunately, the courts had to rule the way they did. The only thing that can stop that kind of trend in ruling is this going before the Supreme Court, which there is no telling how they will jump becuase wording is everything. Two Bush appointees have actually granted stays of execution in death penality cases, limited presidential power and other things Bush would not approve of. Again, all this comes down to words.
Important words like with important distinctions, such as "marriage" and "union". A union is a legally recognized partnership with certain legal rights, benefits and responsiblities. A marriage is a religious sacrement with different rules for various religions. For example, Judaism, Islam and Catholicism (leaving alone the various sects of Christianity) all have different rules about marriage and even more diversely about divorce. In Roman Catholicism, the only way out is annulment, which means officially the marriage never took place. In Judaism, the only way out is to obtain a get which is a judgement from a rabbinical court determining what the husband owes the wife and the marriage is over. In Islam, a husband and wife must only do their best to make a marriage work, and if all that fails, they may seperate. Legally, there are procedures different than all these for divorce. One set of laws for everyone, regardless of religious belief, welcome to America. So, logically, if religion doesn't matter for getting OUT of marriage, it shouldn't matter getting IN to marriage. American law doesn't require a get, just a divorce decree. Religion is seperate from this. So, if we keep the state only issuing union between individuals, we can let religion deal with what "marriage" is.
Then we can bust religion for things like tax fraud and pedophilia.
So it is written, so do I see it.
The reason the California appealate court had to stand by the law on the books is that the law banning gay marriage is Proposition 22 which was a voter initiated referendum. It passed in a landslide 61% of the vote all the way back in 2000. Yes, ladies and gentlemen, the voters of California lobbied to have this put on the ballot six years ago and voted for it and now 64% favor some kind of legal status for gay unions (more specifics about verbage coming up). This is why legislation should be left to the professionals. They debate, consider and generally go slower rather than just collect a few thousand signatures and run ads on television. They who represent us fight it out for us, give it more hours a day than any of us could individually and hammer it out. So, California's Supreme Court will hear this out at some point and a ruling will be made. Then possibly moved upward to the Supreme Court.
In the case of Georgia and Nebraska, same sex marriages were banned by constitutional amendment, which means even the courts have to follow in that given jurisdiction. That's why income tax isn't unconstitutional, it's an amendment the majority of the people voted and in the US, the will of the people, in theory, trumps the will of the court. Of course, see the above paragraph for why the will of the people is little better than a mob in Shakespeare. So, amendments guide the courts i nterms of constitutionality and courts can only rule in those bounds, as they see them. So, unfortunately, the courts had to rule the way they did. The only thing that can stop that kind of trend in ruling is this going before the Supreme Court, which there is no telling how they will jump becuase wording is everything. Two Bush appointees have actually granted stays of execution in death penality cases, limited presidential power and other things Bush would not approve of. Again, all this comes down to words.
Important words like with important distinctions, such as "marriage" and "union". A union is a legally recognized partnership with certain legal rights, benefits and responsiblities. A marriage is a religious sacrement with different rules for various religions. For example, Judaism, Islam and Catholicism (leaving alone the various sects of Christianity) all have different rules about marriage and even more diversely about divorce. In Roman Catholicism, the only way out is annulment, which means officially the marriage never took place. In Judaism, the only way out is to obtain a get which is a judgement from a rabbinical court determining what the husband owes the wife and the marriage is over. In Islam, a husband and wife must only do their best to make a marriage work, and if all that fails, they may seperate. Legally, there are procedures different than all these for divorce. One set of laws for everyone, regardless of religious belief, welcome to America. So, logically, if religion doesn't matter for getting OUT of marriage, it shouldn't matter getting IN to marriage. American law doesn't require a get, just a divorce decree. Religion is seperate from this. So, if we keep the state only issuing union between individuals, we can let religion deal with what "marriage" is.
Then we can bust religion for things like tax fraud and pedophilia.
So it is written, so do I see it.